Review of overage exemptions for the Early Childhood Care ... · Review of overage exemptions for the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Programme National Disability Authority

Review of overage exemptions for the Early

Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)

Programme

June 2018

Review of overage exemptions for the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Programme

National Disability Authority 2

Contents

Contents......................................................................................................... 2

Executive summary ...................................................................................... 6

Background .................................................................................................................... 6

Consultation process ................................................................................................. 7

Findings ............................................................................................................................ 7

2. Background and context ........................................................................ 16

Government policy on early education ........................................................... 16

Early Childhood Care and Education programme (ECCE) ................... 16

Early Childhood Care and Education age requirements and Overage

exemption ..................................................................................................................... 17

Access Inclusion Model (AIM) ............................................................................. 19

Better Start .................................................................................................................. 20

Developments from September 2018 in the Early Childhood Care

and Education programme ................................................................................... 21

Legislation for school attendance in Ireland ................................................. 22

Department of Education and Skills supports in primary school for

children with special educational need ............................................................ 23

3. Review of overage exemptions ............................................................. 26

Changes to overage exemptions and subsequent pause ......................... 26

Consultation process ............................................................................................... 27

How the National Disability Authority approached the review

process ............................................................................................................................ 28

Research ........................................................................................................................ 28

Data ................................................................................................................................. 28

Focus groups with key stakeholders ................................................................. 29

Open Policy Debate ................................................................................................. 30

4. Data analysis of current exemptions .................................................... 32

Department of Children and Youth Affairs administrative data ........ 33

Review of sample of ECCE overage exemption application files ........ 36

Department of Education and Skills administrative data....................... 38



5. International evidence ........................................................................... 41

Evidence from peer reviewed literature.................................................................... 41

Arrangements for pre-school retention in other jurisdictions ............................. 44

6. Engagement with stakeholders - parents ............................................ 47

Background .................................................................................................................. 47

Children who have an Early Childhood Care and Education overage

exemption ..................................................................................................................... 47

Parents’ concerns ...................................................................................................... 56

AIM supports ............................................................................................................... 58

Primary school ............................................................................................................ 63

Parent interviews ...................................................................................................... 63

7. Engagement with stakeholders – Early Childhood Care and

Education providers, Education and Health professionals .................... 71

Roundtable with Education stakeholders .................................................................. 71

Discussion with early years stakeholders.................................................................. 72

Discussion with health stakeholders .......................................................................... 74

8. Open policy debate ................................................................................. 75

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 75

The debate ....................................................................................................................... 75

The Early Childhood Care and Education programme .......................................... 76

Guiding principles ........................................................................................................... 76

Language ........................................................................................................................... 76

Systemic issues ................................................................................................................ 77

8.1 The overage exemption ......................................................................................... 77

8.2.1Implementing Government Policy commitments ........................................... 80

8.2.2 The Pre-school and Primary school systems .................................................. 80

8.2.3Transitions ............................................................................................................... 84

8.2.4Communication ...................................................................................................... 85

9. Appendices .............................................................................................. 87

Appendix 1 - Acknowledgements ............................................................. 87

Appendix 2 – What the international evidence tells us about school

exemptions / deferments from other jurisdictions? ............................... 87

Jurisdictions with defined systems for deferring ......................................... 87



Scotland ......................................................................................................................... 95

Jurisdictions without defined systems for deferring ................................ 100

Jurisdictions with varied systems for deferral ............................................ 101

Appendix 3 – International evidence on the retention of children in

early childhood settings ........................................................................... 107

Scope of the literature review ........................................................................... 107

Issues in reviewing the evidence ....................................................................... 107

Early Childhood Care and Education (Early Childhood Care and

Education) ................................................................................................................... 108

Readiness for School .............................................................................................. 117

The ‘unready’ child ................................................................................................. 121

Literature review ..................................................................................................... 125

Delayed school entry for children with disabilities .................................. 126

Research on early grade retention –versus- social promotion ........... 135

Duration at early years education ................................................................... 145

Being ‘over-age for grade’ ................................................................................... 149

References................................................................................................................... 152

Appendix 4 – Open policy debate ........................................................... 159

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 159

The open policy debate ........................................................................................ 159

Appendix 4.1 .............................................................................................. 161

Background Paper and Open Policy Debate Agenda .......................... 161

Introduction/Context ............................................................................................ 162

Changes to ECCE scheme from September 2018 ................................... 163

Access Inclusion Model (AIM) ........................................................................... 163

Better Start ................................................................................................................ 164

Department of Education and Skills supports in primary school for

children with special education need (SEN) ............................................... 165

Changes to overage exemptions and subsequent pause ....................... 167

Consultation process ............................................................................................. 167

Next steps ................................................................................................................... 168

Appendix 4.2: Reports from table discussions ...................................... 171

Reports from table discussions ................................................................................. 171

Table 1 ............................................................................................................................ 172



Facilitator Caroline McCamley .............................................................................. 172

Note taker Deirdre Hanratty ................................................................................ 172

Afternoon session ........................................................................................................ 174

Table 2 ............................................................................................................................ 177

Morning session ............................................................................................................ 177


Table 3 ............................................................................................................................ 181

Morning session ............................................................................................................ 181


Table 4 ............................................................................................................................ 183

Morning session ............................................................................................................ 183

Other issues ............................................................................................................... 184

Priority issues from the table ............................................................................ 184


Observations on the exemption issue and the scenarios set out in the

table ............................................................................................................................... 185

Table 5 ............................................................................................................................ 187

Afternoon session .................................................................................................... 189

Appendix 4.3: Scenarios for addressing the overage exemption issue –

a prompt to the Open Policy Debate ..................................................... 203

Appendix 5– Parents survey questionnaire ........................................... 204

Personal details ........................................................................................................ 204

Information, advice and concerns .................................................................... 206

Information ................................................................................................................ 206

Reasons for applying for an overage exemption: ...................................... 206

Advice from professionals ................................................................................... 208

Preschool supports ................................................................................................. 208

Other supports ......................................................................................................... 210

Transitions to Primary School .......................................................................... 210

Consent to be contacted to discuss your child’s experiences of the

exemption to the upper age limit to the Early Childhood Care and

Education pre-school programme. ................................................................. 211



Executive summary

Background

The Early Childhood Care and Education (hereafter ECCE)

programme was introduced in 2010 and was the first free universal early

education programme in Ireland. When the ECCE programme was introduced it

contained no additional provision or supports for children with disabilities but it

did facilitate children with disabilities by allowing them to either commence

ECCE later and / or spread their ‘year’ over two years. Where either of these

accommodations involved a child participating on ECCE programme above the

programme’s upper age limit (5 years and 6 months) an application had to be

made to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Such applications became

known as ECCE overage exemptions.

In December 2017, a decision was taken to cease the process of ECCE overage

exemptions. The decision was made by the Department of Children and Youth

Affairs with the Department of Education and Skills. It was made after

collaboration with members of the Access and Inclusion Model (hereafter

AIM) cross-sectoral implementation group, including representatives from the

National Council for Special Education, the National Disability Authority and the

HSE, representatives of parents of children with special needs and a

representative of early years providers.

The decision was taken in light of the developments in the ECCE programme

and the supports in place for children in primary schools. Of particular relevance

were the roll-out of AIM (a programme of universal and targeted supports for

children with disabilities in ECCE) from September 2016 and the announcement

that from September 2018 all children would have two programme years of

ECCE. The decision essentially was based on the view that the offer from

September 2018 for all children was greater than that which had been offered to

those who had availed of an ECCE overage exemption and that developments

had, therefore, rendered ECCE overage exemptions redundant.

Also, the ECCE overage exemptions did not support the policy aim that children

should transition to primary school with their peers.

However, the decision prompted stakeholders to raise concerns and the Minister

therefore paused the proposed change to allow for a wider consultation, to

include in consultation with parents of children with disabilities and special needs.



Consultation process

The consultation process, on the proposed changes to the rules on overage

exemptions in the ECCE programme, was jointly led by the Department of

Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills, with the

assistance of the National Disability Authority, who were asked to conduct an

independent review.

The National Disability Authority has compiled this report based on the

published research evidence, details of arrangements for similar processes in peer

jurisdictions, findings of the survey of parents who are currently availing of the an

ECCE overage exemption and follow up interviews and findings of the Open

Policy Debate. The report is for the consideration by the Department of

Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills.

Following receipt of this report the two Departments will consider the outcome

and prepare policy proposals for the two Ministers.

Findings

Engagement with parents of children who have an ECCE overage exemption was

central to this review. Parents interviewed were extremely positive about the

impact which the ECCE overage exemption had on their child’s development.

Many parents described how in their experience a lack of information and

disjointed and inadequate service provision (delayed or inadequate access to

assessments and therapeutic interventions in particular) had contributed to their

child requiring an ECCE overage exemption. Parents interviewed believed very

strongly that their child was not ready for school in September 2017, with many

saying that they would not have started their child in school even if their

application for an ECCE overage exemption had been turned down.

Parent interviews and survey results highlighted that most parents’ concerns

were focused on their child’s ‘school readiness’ or their child’s disability or

development delay more than on schools’ capacity to meet their child’s needs.

Less than half of the parents surveyed had engaged with an educational

professional (teacher, principal or Special Education Needs Organiser) for advice

on the possible advantages and disadvantages of their child not progressing to

school with his or her age peers.

Many interviewees emphasised the things that their child would not have been

able to do in September 2017, which ranged from writing to being mature

enough to understand the implications of their allergy but most frequently it

related to sitting down and concentrating or ‘staying on task’. While some

interviewees mentioned the importance of play and of Aistear most emphasised

the pressure on the child to have certain skills in the school context. This



perhaps raises questions about how schools’ capacity to support children with a

variety of support needs is communicated to parents. It perhaps also raises

questions about how the curriculum and pedagogical approach used in the early

years of primary school is communicated to and understood by parents.

Parents’ survey responses highlight a number of interesting considerations. Parent

survey respondents’ use of the ECCE overage exemption appeared in the vast

majority of cases not to be in line with the original intention of the arrangements.

As set out originally, the ECCE overage exemption was not intended to provide

additional provision but rather accommodate children with a disability by allowing

them to start ECCE later or spread their ‘year’ of Early Childhood Care and

Education over two programme years.

However, survey responses (and follow up interviews) suggest that the ECCE

overage exemption has become a means for children with a disability, delay or

health condition to access an additional ECCE programme year. The majority of

interviewees confirmed that when they enrolled their child in ECCE they had no

intention of applying for an ECCE overage exemption but that they subsequently

came to the view that their child was not ready for school in September 2017

and applied for one.

This finding is significant for two reasons. Firstly, at some point after it was

introduced the ECCE overage exemption appears to have evolved and become

primarily about additional provision for children already in ECCE. Secondly, the

function or need which the ECCE overage exemption is meeting is different to

that which appears to have been in mind by those who introduced it.

This suggests that if ECCE overage exemptions are to continue in some form

after September 2018 (when all children will have two full programme years of

ECCE ) there is a clear need for a re-statement of what the ECCE overage

exemption actually is; what are the needs it is trying to address; and, what

evidence and values and policy goals are informing its operation.

The vast majority of children in the survey sample were still going to be 6 or less

in September 2018. These children’s birth month meant that they would be over

5 and 6 months finishing ECCE at the end of June 2018 but would be less than

six starting school. This suggests perhaps that ECCE overage exemptions are

partly a disability issue and also partly a birth month issue. A number of

interviewees emphasised the birth month issue. Some interviewees also

suggested that the requirement that children getting an ECCE overage

exemption have a disability be dropped. Again, this suggests perhaps that if

ECCE overage exemptions are to continue in some form after September 2018

a re-consideration and re-statement of the purpose of ECCE overage

exemptions is required.



Available administrative data from the Department and Children and Youth

Affairs and Pobal showed that just under 500 children have an overage exemption

in the 2017 – 2018 ECCE programme year. Two thirds of these children have

no targeted AIM supports and the vast majority are attending ECCE five days a

week. 46% of 2017 – 2018 ECCE overage exemption recipients were

categorised having a “Speech and Language” disability.

The survey responses suggest that the figure of 46% recorded as having a

“Speech and Language” disability in the Administrative Data may not adequately

reflect the fact that children may have a disability or development delay in more

than one area. However, it is nonetheless the case that the need for support

around communication is a factor for many of the children with an overage

exemption. This raises questions perhaps around how children with

communication issues are supported in ECCE settings and in primary school and

how this is communicated to parents.

Pre-school staff appear to be very central in terms of provision of information

and advice on ECCE overage exemptions to parents. Research has shown that

many Irish early years professionals believe that children in general should go to

school later than Irish children typically do1. Advice on ECCE overage

exemptions as reported by survey respondents typically related to the child’s lack

of ‘school readiness’ or the manifestations of his or her development delay rather

than how these might be supported in the school context. Advice on any possible

disadvantages of availing of an ECCE overage exemption (and thereby being

older than classmates throughout the child’s full school journey) was rarely given

to parents. A concerning finding is that some survey respondents indicated that

pre-school staff provided them with initial information on ECCE overage

exemptions but never discussed AIM supports with them.

A clear policy position, backed up by available evidence, on ideal school starting

age in the context of the Irish education continuum which is communicated to all

the stakeholders working in the early childhood environment may be part of

what is required to address this issue.

A review of redacted ECCE overage exemption application files showed that

these largely contain statements of the child’s disability, delay or health issue in

hugely varying degrees of details ranging from no more detail than “speech issue”,

“speech delay” or “concerns about development” to extensive medical

1 Ring, E., Mhic Mhathúna, M., Moloney, M., Hayes, N., Breathnach, D., Stafford, P., Carswell, D.,

Keegan, S., Kelleher, C., McCafferty, D., O’Keeffe, A., Leavy, A., Madden, R. and Ozonyia, M.

(2016) An examination of concepts of school readiness among parents and educators

in Ireland. Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs



descriptions. However, regardless of the level of detail of the child’s disability,

delay or health issue the files generally contained no information on the

challenges that the child would face in a school context.

Any administrative system for deciding on whether or not a child should be

granted an ECCE overage exemption will face the challenge of balancing being

rigorous and not being onerous on parents or professionals. The current system

correctly or incorrectly appears to set a relatively low threshold for supporting

evidence in terms of the level of detail required and, perhaps more importantly, a

lack of clarity on what question those providing reports are supposed to be

answering.

Data from the Department of Education and Skills shows that while retention

(keeping children back in a class year) still occurs the number of students being

retained continues to decline. Moreover, departmental circulars have set out a

process for how retention is to be managed.

There is a dearth of peer reviewed literature which directly answers the exact

question which the National Disability Authority sought to investigate: do

children in pre-school who do not progress to school with their age peers have

better or worse outcomes than children who do progress. There were two

bodies of literature which provide partial answers to this question. The literature

on retention (keeping children back a class year) including retention of young

children is extensive and unequivocal. Outcomes for retained students are

negative. Studies of children as young 5 to 6 year olds (kindergarten age children

in the US) show that retention is experienced negatively by children and that

retention does not result in long-term academic gains.

The other body of literature reviewed was studies which focus on delaying

school entry beyond the typically age range (referred to by the American term

‘redshirting’ in most of the literature). The ‘redshirting’ literature shows more

mixed short-term outcomes than the retention literature. However, the

‘redshirting’ literature is from the US and whether or not the children who

commence or delay school entry are in or have been in good quality early years

programmes is not controlled for in much of the literature.

In the absence of Irish studies of outcomes for children who are retained in pre-

school when their age peers progress to school (or at least more directly

comparable studies) the available published literature on retention and

‘redshirting’ suggest that the approach to ECCE overage exemptions should be

one of caution.



Arrangements for managing retention in pre-school beyond the standard age

range / deferrals of school starting year in comparable jurisdictions (USA,

England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and New Zealand) were reviewed.

In most of the jurisdictions the rules on school starting age and state funded early

years care and education completion age were aligned (which is not the case in

Ireland).

Education authorities tended to have responsibility for early years provision so

structures for pre-school and primary provision, and in particular supports for

children with disabilities / special education needs, tended to be more aligned

than they are in Ireland. Children with disabilities, particularly for those with a

diagnosed disability, typically had a plan for education supports which covered

both pre-school and primary.

The US (in some States) use standardised ‘school readiness’ tests but in other

jurisdictions a ‘team around the child’ approach is used. This approach focuses on

providing joined up information and support around the transition to school as

well as making / informing any decision on pre-school retention / school deferral.

Where there is a pre-school retention / school deferral granted it is typically

linked to a plan with agreed goals for the child for the additional pre-school year.

In some countries those deferring school entry beyond the standard pre-school

age range are not automatically entitled to additional free pre-school provision.

Key informants in the jurisdictions with whom the National Disability Authority

engaged emphasised that:

in their jurisdiction there is broad agreement that it in the best interests of

children to move on to school with their peers, except in very exceptional

circumstances

there is unlikely to be any perfect system for determining which children

meet those very exceptional circumstances criteria

key to getting the approach right is supporting children and parents in the

transition to school and in particular having people (key workers or other

professionals) who can reassure parents that schools can adequately

support their child’s development

The National Disability Authority engaged with stakeholders from the education,

health and early year sectors to hear their views on ECCE overage exemptions.

Education stakeholders focused on the challenges faced by all children and

families in the pre-school to school transition and the additional challenges faced

by children with disabilities and their families. It was noted that difficulties around

transitioning into primary schools were highlighted in a recent Economic and



Social Research Institute report2. At present, primary school teachers receive

little information about a child’s skills and challenges when they start school.

Education stakeholders believed that as long as pre-school to primary school

transitions are disjointed and parents (of children with disabilities) are not

supported then transitions will be stressful for parents and children and ECCE

overage exemption applications will continue be one manifestation of this.

Therefore, the focus should be on supporting transitions and on developing

‘ready schools’ rather than focusing on whether children are ‘school ready’ or

not.

Education stakeholders noted that Ireland has moved from a position of having

no universal pre-school provision to having one year to now having two years of

universal pre-school provision (from September 2018) incrementally over a fairly

short period of time. The expansion of provision now means that the continuum

of state-funded education now begins at approximately 3 years of age. Given that

this is the new continuum of education the implications for how information on

children is shared, how supports needs are assessed and planned for, how

supports are aligned in this new scenario needs to be worked out.

Health stakeholders expressed the view that children should progress to school

with their age peers except in highly exceptional circumstances. Health

stakeholders cautioned against the idea that there should or could be a

standardised ‘disability assessment’ which could determine which children should

or should not be granted an ECCE overage exemption.

Early years providers expressed the view that some children are not ready for

school by the time they reach the ECCE programme upper age limit and that

such children benefit from additional time in an early years settings. This again

highlights the different views on ‘school readiness’ held by different stakeholders

in the Irish context.

An Open Policy Debate attended by parents, early years professionals, primary

school teachers, HSE clinicians working with young children and others

considered the advantages and disadvantages of the ECCE overage exemption

and possible future arrangements.

At the Open Policy Debate participants suggested that explaining the purpose of

the ECCE overage exemption more clearly was required, as was work on

defining the criteria and rules for application. Also, that the ECCE overage

2 Smythe, E., 2018, The transition to primary education: insights from the Growing Up

in Ireland Study, ESRI



exemption process should be linked to the AIM Access and Inclusion Profile of

the Child to ensure that it is determined by the needs of the child.

Furthermore, it was suggested by Open Policy Debate participants that AIM

could be a mechanism to provide supports for a transition plan from pre-school

into primary.

Another proposal from the Open Policy Debate was that ‘whole of early years’

communications approach, which places the child and their parent at the centre,

was required so that navigating supports across Health, Children’s and Education

sectors is less confusing for parents, and parents of children with disabilities in

particular.

Of some possible options presented at the Open Policy Debate an option which

allowed all children to have two programme years of ECCE but increased

flexibility for parents by allowing them to choose which September they would

start their child in (2.5 to 3.5 depending on birth month) was identified as the

preferred option, though participants were not asked to endorse any option.

Overall, Open Policy Debate participants were inclined to the view that the

ECCE overage exemption should be retained for a short, defined period of time

while improvements to the system were made. At the Open Policy Debate there

was,

‘considerable consistency in the issues identified as requiring

attention. As the Early Childhood Care and Education

programme itself develops, and there is positive and planned

transition of children from pre- to primary school as standard

practice, then it was anticipated that the need for Early

Childhood Care and Education overage exemptions would

reduce.’

It should be noted however, that some parents interviewed expressed the view

that even in a more joined up system, with better supports for transitions, that

some children would not be ‘school ready’ after two years of ECCE and that

there would always be a need for some flexibility for some children. Other

parents believed that with timely access to appropriate supports (both within and

beyond the ECCE setting) that their child would have been able to go to school

with his or her age peers after two years of ECCE.

The provision of two full programme years of ECCE from September 2018,

therefore, does not appear to be sufficient to reduce the perceived need for

ECCE overage exemptions in the absence of other measures.



Key findings of this review which will be important to reflect on when

considering future options on the ECCE overage exemptions are that:

Many parents’ experience the supports available to young children with

disabilities as fragmented. Some parts of the system are difficult to access

in a timely way or even to find information on, which results in some

parents believing that their child missed support at a crucial stage which

contributed to them not being ready to progress to school with his or her

age peers

Parents surveyed and interviewed had significant concerns about their

child’s ‘school readiness’ but had differing views of what skills or attributes

were required in school. Only half of those surveyed had sought advice

from an Educational professional before applying for an ECCE overage

exemption

In addition to concerns about perceived ‘school readiness’ some parents

were concerned about pedagogy or approach to teaching in schools and

the expectations they believed would be placed on their child in that

context

Transition planning processes for all children from pre-school to school in

Ireland are underdeveloped but as the points above demonstrate, parents

of children with disabilities have additional concerns and information

requirements and need access to information and support around

transitions

Pre-school practitioners appear to be key providers of information and

advice on ECCE overage exemption. Other research has shown that

many pre-school practitioners believe that a school starting age, which

is older than the average Irish school starting age of 4 to 5 years, is

preferable

AIM supports and the ECCE overage exemption process are not

connected. Approximately, two thirds of ECCE overage exemption

recipients do not have AIM supports. Some survey respondents were

given information on ECCE overage exemptions by pre-school staff but

said that AIM supports were never discussed with them

The ECCE overage exemption appears to now primarily meet the need

of parents who start their children in ECCE with their age peers with the

intention of sending them to school with their age peers but who

subsequently decide that their child needs additional time in ECCE to

prepare for school



Support around communication and language development is a factor for a

significant proportion of children who currently have an ECCE overage

exemption

The available evidence from the peer reviewed literature suggests that

there should be a cautious approach to children with disabilities not

progressing along the education continuum with their age peers. However,

most of the peer jurisdictions reviewed had processes for dealing with

exceptional cases where children do not progress to school with their

age peers. A ‘team around the child’ approach was typically central to

informing or deciding decisions on those exceptional cases.



2. Background and context

Government policy on early education

The White Paper on Early Childhood Education Ready to Learn (1999) is

concerned with children from birth to 6 years. It sets out the core objective of

early childhood education as 'supporting the development and educational

achievement of children through high quality early education, with particular

focus on the target groups of the disadvantaged and those with special needs'

Síolta3 - the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education was

published in 2006. The Early Years Education Policy Unit of the Department of

Education and Skills manages the implementation of Síolta.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has developed Aistear -

the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, for children from birth to 6 years of

age. This framework, published in 2009, describes the types of learning that are

important for children of this age group and sets out broad learning goals for all

children. It can be used in the range of early childhood settings, including

children's own homes, childminding settings, full and part-time day care settings,

sessional services and infant classes in primary schools. The Framework uses four

interconnected themes to describe the content of children's learning and

development:

Well-being

Identity and Belonging

Communicating

Exploring and Thinking

Early Childhood Care and Education programme (ECCE)

Early childhood education generally means education before the start of formal

schooling or before the age at which children are generally required to attend

school. It covers the period from birth to 6 years.

The ECCE programme provides early care and education for children of pre-

school age. It is a universal programme available to all children within the eligible

age range. It provides children with their first formal experience of early learning

prior to commencing primary school. In general, the provision amounts to 3

3 Síolta is designed to define, assess and support the improvement of quality across all aspects

of practice in early childhood care and education (ECCE) settings where children aged birth to

six years are present. See www.siolta.ie

http://www.siolta.ie/



hours per day, 5 days a week over 38 weeks for children enrolled in participating

playschools. There are currently three points of entry throughout the

programme year – September, January and April. The number of entry points will

revert to one at the beginning of the new programme year in September 2018.

Childcare services taking part in the Early Childhood Care and Education

programme must provide an appropriate pre-school educational programme.

This educational programme must adhere to the principles of Síolta. While all

childcare settings are regulated by the Early Years Inspectorate in Tusla, early-

years services participating in the Early Childhood Care and Education

programme are inspected by the Early-Years Education-focused Inspections. The

Early-Years Education-focused inspections focus on processes and practices

relating to children’s learning in the Early Childhood Care and Education

setting.

Early Childhood Care and Education age requirements and

Overage exemption

Children are eligible to attend pre-school and avail of the Early Childhood

Care and Education programme on reaching 3 years of age (2 years 8

months from September 2018). Under the rules of this programme there is a

requirement, that children availing of it, must not turn 5 years and 6 months

before the end of June of the programme year.

Children with special and/or additional needs have been able to apply for an

overage exemption, beyond the upper age eligibility (5 years 6 months) for the

Early Childhood Care and Education programme. The overage exemption

was introduced at the outset when the Early Childhood Care and Education

programme started in 2010.

“There is no entitlement under the programme to any

additional provision. The programme does, however, include a

number of provisions to take account of children with special

needs. These include an exemption from the upper age limit

for qualification under the programme where a child is

developmentally delayed and would benefit from starting primary

school at a later age. In addition, children with special needs can

apply to have the pre-school year split over two years on a pro



rata basis, for example availing of the scheme for 2 days a week in

the first year and for 3 days a week in the second year”4

As set out originally the Early Childhood Care and Education overage

exemption involved no additional provision. Rather, it was two

accommodations (a later starting age and / or one ‘year’ split over two) to assist

children with disabilities to participate in Early Childhood Care and

Education.

Approximately five hundred children have availed of the overage exemption each

year since then.

Exemptions to the Early Childhood Care and Education upper age limit

are only allowed where the child has been assessed by the HSE, or a ‘treating

consultant, as having special needs which will delay their entry to school’5.

Applications for such exemptions need to be accompanied by a letter of

recommendation from a medical specialist for an extra year of ECCE. Examples

of medical specialists include:

Speech and Language Therapist

Occupational Therapist

Senior Psychologist

Physiotherapist

Paediatrician / developmental Neurologist

Psychiatrist

Psychotherapist

Cardiologist

Oncologist

The Early Childhood Care and Education overage exemption was never

intended to conflict with the legislative requirement for a child to start school by

4 Dr James Reilly TD, Minister for Health and Children, 4th of May 2011

http://debatesarchive.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail20110504

00119?opendocument

5 Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2016, CHILDCARE FUNDING PROGRAMMES:

INFORMATION AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. Updated: 28th July 2016

http://www.fingalcountychildcare.ie/index.php/childcare-documents/19-information-childcare-

funded-programmes-and-faqs-2016/file

http://debatesarchive.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2011050400119?opendocument

http://debatesarchive.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2011050400119?opendocument

http://www.fingalcountychildcare.ie/index.php/childcare-documents/19-information-childcare-funded-programmes-and-faqs-2016/file

http://www.fingalcountychildcare.ie/index.php/childcare-documents/19-information-childcare-funded-programmes-and-faqs-2016/file



age six. The compulsory age of primary school attendance in Ireland is six years

of age.

It should also be noted that the application process for an exemption from the

upper age limit for the Early Childhood Care and Education programme was

introduced within a context where:

The Early Childhood Care and Education programme was for one

year only and

Where the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) had yet to be

introduced

Access Inclusion Model (AIM)

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs has worked to improve the pre-

school experience for children with disabilities and to optimise their early

development. The Access and Inclusion Model was introduced in 2016 with 7

different levels of progressive support ranging from universal (Levels 1-3) to

targeted (Levels 4-7) for children with disabilities. Over four thousand children

have so far benefitted from targeted supports and many multiples of this from

universal supports available under AIM.

Figure 1 AIM Supports Level 1-7



The Access and Inclusion Model is a model of supports designed to ensure

that children with a disability can access the Early Childhood Care and

Education programme. Its goal is to support early years providers to deliver an

inclusive pre-school experience. AIM is a child-centred and evidence-based

model, involving seven levels of progressive support, based on the needs and

strengths of the child and the early years setting. Supports provided under AIM

include:

the development of an inclusive culture

enhanced continuing professional development for early years

practitioners

the provision of equipment, appliances and grants for minor alterations

access to therapeutic intervention and increased capitation for early years

providers in the case of children with very complex needs

AIM is designed to support children to access the Early Childhood Care and

Education programme. The child must qualify on age grounds for the Early

Childhood Care and Education programme and the early years provider

must be registered with Tusla and hold an active Department of Children and

Youth Affairs contract to deliver the Early Childhood Care and Education

programme. The only exception to this is where the child qualifies for the Early

Childhood Care and Education programme and is availing of early childhood

care and education services funded under another Department of Children and

Youth Affairs childcare programme, such as, the Community Childcare

Subvention (CCS) or Training and Education Childcare (TEC)

programmes.

In its first year, AIM provided two thousand four hundred and eighty-six children

with four thousand seven hundred and sixty targeted supports to ensure that

they could fully participate in the Early Childhood Care and Education

programme. In the current programme year, AIM has provided three thousand

seventy-one children with four thousand four hundred and seventy-four targeted

supports to date.

Better Start

Better Start is an initiative of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, in

collaboration with the Early Years Education Policy Unit of the Department of

Education and Skills and Pobal to establish a single, cohesive approach to quality

across the Early Childhood Care and Education sector in Ireland. The broader

aim of Better Start is to bring coordination, cohesion and consistency to the

provision of state funded quality supports and to work in alignment with



statutory systems, that is, regulation and inspection, in the Early Childhood Care

and Education sector.

Better Start is comprised of three pillars:

1. City and County Childcare Committees.

2. National Voluntary Childcare Organisations.

3. National Early Years Quality Development Service.

Under the Access and Inclusion Model, it also provides expert advice,

mentoring and support to providers and practitioners from specialists in early

years care and education for children with disabilities.

Developments from September 2018 in the Early Childhood

Care and Education programme

From September 2018, all children meeting the minimum age requirement of 2

years and 8 months will be eligible for a full two programme years on the ECCE

programme. The upper age requirement is that the child must not reach 5 years

and 6 months before the end of the programme year.

This extension to the ECCE programme from September 2018 refines the

development introduced last year, whereby, three intake dates were adopted and

it will increase the duration of each registered child on the ECCE programme

from a current average of 61 weeks, to a potential duration of 76 weeks (two full

programme years). This enhancement delivers fully on a commitment in the

Programme for a Partnership Government that is good for children,

families and Early Years providers.

This new measure will also address the situation where there was a wide range in

the number of pre-school weeks a child could avail of – between 61 and 88

weeks – and will ensure a programme that is equitable for all children.

The number of entry points will revert to one at the beginning of the new

programme year in September 2018. One enrolment period at the start of the

pre-school year will support quality service provision principally by making it

easier for services to provide continuity of staffing through the programme year.

The single enrolment will also help streamline the administration process and will

make it easier for childcare providers to operate and budget for the programme

year. This will also make it easier for parents to secure places on the ECCE

programme for their children.



Legislation for school attendance in Ireland

The legislation governing school attendance in Ireland is the Education

Welfare Act 2000. Parents are required to ensure that their children from the

age of 6 to the age of 16 attend a recognised school or receive a certain

minimum education.

Article 42 of Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Constitution) acknowledges that the

primary and natural educator of the child is the family and guarantees to respect

the right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the

religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

Parents are free to provide this education in their homes or in schools

recognised or established by the State.

The law and policy on school start-age is clearly established in Ireland. Most

children in Ireland start their first-level education in primary schools (also

called national schools) at the age of 4 or 5 years of age. Legally, children can be

enrolled at primary school from the age of 4 upwards and must have started their

formal education by the age of 6 years. The primary school cycle is 8 years long.

Schools generally have 2 years of infant classes, followed by class 1 to class 6.

Children with special educational needs are generally educated in mainstream

schools.

Children should be in school by the time they are six and the primary school

system has a variety of resources to support children with disabilities.

If children are not in school by 6 years of age, under the Education Welfare

Act 2000, the Educational Welfare service of Túsla (the Child and Family

Agency) must be satisfied that the child is receiving a minimum standard of

education in a place other than at a recognised school. Tusla does this by sending

Educational Welfare Inspectors out to the place of the child's education.

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs states that the guiding principle

with regard to a child’s participation in pre-school and primary school is the best

interests of the child. In keeping with this best interest principle, children should:

Participate in inclusive mainstream settings (both pre-school and primary)

(unless there is a compelling argument for a specialist setting), and



Transition from pre-school to primary school with their peers with

appropriate supports provided by the relevant primary school, the NCSE

and other bodies as required6

Department of Education and Skills supports in primary school

for children with special educational need

The Department of Education and Skills is committed to ensuring that all

children, including those with learning disabilities and/or mental health issues, can

have access to an education appropriate to their needs, preferably in school

settings through the primary and post primary school network.

The Department of Education and Skills provides for a continuum of special

education provision to be made available, so that, regardless of the level of need

of the child, educational provision can be made for them.

The policy of the Department is that children should be included in mainstream

placements with additional supports provided where necessary. The extent of

supports required for any child in a particular class setting or school will depend

on their individual learning needs and the extent of care needs that they may

have. In circumstances where children with special educational needs cannot be

accommodated in mainstream education, they may be enrolled in special classes

or special schools where more intensive and supportive interventions are

provided.

Funding for special education provision in 2018 amounts to some €1.75 billion

and includes the provision for supports, such as:

Over thirteen thousand four hundred Special Education Teaching posts in

mainstream primary and post primary schools for the 2017/2018 school year,

to provide additional teaching support to pupils with special educational

needs

Fifteen thousand Special Needs Assistants (SNAs) which will be available for

allocation to primary, post primary and special schools for the new school

year, this is one thousand and ten more posts, or a 7% increase, in the

number of posts which were available last year

6 Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2018, Press release: ‘Department of Children

and Youth Affairs Ministers Zappone and Bruton announce details of the

consultation process on ‘overage exemptions’ to the ECCE programme’. Tuesday 6th

March, 2018



Over one thousand one hundred teachers in one hundred and twenty-five

special schools, including education provision in Hospital schools and HSE

Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) Units

Approximately one thousand four hundred and forty special classes, which

includes one hundred and forty new special classes to be opened in

September 2018. This compares to five hundred and forty-eight special classes

in 2011, an increase of 162%

Enhanced capitation grants for special schools and special classes attached to

mainstream schools

Teacher training and continuing professional development in the area of

special education through the Special Education Support Service (SESS)

Special school transport arrangements

Assistive technology/Specialised equipment

Special Arrangements for State Examinations

A new Special Education Teaching allocation process was introduced in

September 2017. The revised allocation process replaces the generalised

allocation process at primary and post primary school level for learning support

and high incidence special educational needs, and the National Council for Special

Education (NCSE) allocation process, which provided additional resource

teaching supports to schools, to support pupils assessed as having Low Incidence

disabilities, such as, moderate general learning disabilities, vision or hearing

impairments, physical disabilities or autism,

The new Special Education Teaching allocation provides a single unified allocation

for special educational support teaching needs to each school, based on each

school’s educational profile.

Under the new allocation model, schools are provided with a total allocation for

special education needs support based on their school profile.

The provision of a profiled allocation is intended to give a fairer allocation to

each school. It recognises that all schools need an allocation for special needs

support and provides a graduated allocation taking into account the actual level of

need in each school.

From the point of view of parents the new Special Education Teaching allocation

model means that their child will receive support based on the level of his/her

special educational needs in school rather than on the basis of a diagnosis.



The Department of Education and Skills has committed to developing a similar

model of resource allocation for the Special Needs Assistants Scheme7.

The Department of Education and Skills therefore has moved, and continues to

move, towards allocating resources on the basis of need as opposed to diagnosis.

It should be noted that difficulties around transitioning into primary schools were

highlighted in a recent Economic and Social Research Institute report8. At

present, primary school teachers often receive little information about a child’s

skills and the challenges that they will face when they start primary school.

7 Department of Education and Skills, 30 May, 2018, Press release ‘Minister Bruton welcomes

Special Needs Assistants Scheme review’ https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-

Releases/2018-press-releases/PR18-05-30.html

8 Smyth, E., 2018, The transition to primary education: insights from the Growing Up

in Ireland Study, ESRI

https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2018-press-releases/PR18-05-30.html

https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2018-press-releases/PR18-05-30.html



3. Review of overage exemptions

Changes to overage exemptions and subsequent pause

In December 2017, a decision was taken to cease the system of overage

exemptions. The rationale underpinning this decision, as articulated by the

Department of Children and Youth Affairs, was to support the achievement of

better outcomes for children with disabilities based on the evidence that children

with a disability should start school with their peers once they have access to

high-quality and inclusive primary school education and that they should become

teenagers with their peers and transition to secondary school with them.

This decision was taken in the context of, and in conjunction with, the

introduction of a full two years of ECCE provision with effect from September

2018, and the introduction of AIM supports. In effect, the view taken at the time

was that the expansion of the full second year of provision and the AIM supports

in place actually exceeded the provision available through the granting of the

overage exemption as introduced at the outset of the ECCE programme in

2010.

The decision was signalled a year in advance and was made by the Department of

Children and Youth Affairs with the Department of Education and Skills. It was

also done in close collaboration with members of the AIM cross-sectoral

implementation group, including representatives from the National Council for

Special Education, the National Disability Authority and the HSE, representatives

of parents of children with special needs and a representative of early years

providers.

There was broad agreement that, in light of the developments in free pre-school

education and the supports in place for children in primary schools, the over-

age exemption would no longer support the policy aim that children should

transition to primary school with their peers. However, the decision prompted

stakeholders to raise concerns and the Minister therefore paused the proposed

change to allow for a wider consultation, to include consultation with parents of

children with disabilities and special needs.

Following the announcement of a consultation process on the proposed changes

to the rules on overage exemptions in the ECCE programme a number of

concerns were raised by some parents of children with disabilities. These parents

are currently deciding whether to defer their child’s entry into the free ECCE

programme and still avail of two full years irrespective of any future policy

changes. An exemption to the upper age limit in the ECCE programme will be

maintained for this cohort for this period of time. This means that parents of



children , (especially children born from September to December), can defer

their children’s start date from September 2018, (when the child will be between

2 years 8 months and 2 years 11 months) to September 2019 (when the child will

be between 3 years 8 months and 3 years 11 months) and continue to avail of

two full years of the ECCE programme or seventy-six weeks in total.


The consultation process, on the proposed changes to the rules on overage

exemptions in the ECCE programme, was jointly led by the Department of

Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills, with the

assistance of the National Disability Authority, who were asked to conduct an

independent review. This involved a number of steps, including:

1. Review of the relevant literature and policy.

4. Review of existing data on overage exemptions, including trends in

applications and approvals.

5. Profile of children currently in receipt of overage exemptions.

6. Review of existing data and trends in school starting age.

7. Identification of options for managing the exemptions going

forward (including the criteria and application, appraisal and appeals

processes) and to consider the impact of each option identified for:

Children and families

Pre-schools and primary schools (including practitioners and

teachers)

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (and its respective

Agencies, policies and programmes)

Department of Education and Skills (and its respective Agencies,

policies and programmes)

Step 5 will be led by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs

and the Department of Education and Skills.

8. Development, testing and issuing of a series of questions for

parents of children with disabilities and preparation of a report on

the results

9. Identification of key stakeholders (including parents) for

consultation

10. Facilitation of an Open Policy Debate with these stakeholders in

conjunction with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs

and the Department of Education and Skills.



How the National Disability Authority approached the review

process

In conducting this independent review process over a 4 month period the

National Disability Authority used a variety of methods in gathering evidence

during the consultative process, including:

Desktop research and literature review of schemes in selected English

speaking jurisdictions

Focus groups with key stakeholders

Bilateral engagement with parents and a parents survey

Open policy debate

Research

The National Disability Authority searched for published peer reviewed literature

for evidence of the educational/social/cognitive effects of a child being retained

(held back) in early years/primary education.

The National Disability Authority also examined current provision in the

following English speaking jurisdictions of England, New Zealand, Northern

Ireland, Scotland, and the United States of America. There was also bilateral

engagement with key informants in selected jurisdictions.

Through this engagement the National Disability Authority sought to find

information on the following questions:

1. What is the legal framework around deferment? For example, what are

the legal age requirements for a child’s schooling?

2. How does the system for applying exemptions work? That is:

What is the infrastructure?

How the exemptions are managed?

What provisions are in place for children with disabilities?

How many exemptions sought by parents are specifically related to

disability?

Data

The National Disability Authority reviewed and analysed data provided by the

Department of Education and Skills on Junior Infants Enrolments over a ten-year

period from 2006-2016 in mainstream settings, which provided a breakdown of

school starting age data. The Department also provided data on retention rates

in mainstream settings for Junior Infants and for Primary Schools, as a whole, for

nine years from 2006-2015.



The National Disability Authority also reviewed and analysed anonymised data

provided by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs on those currently

availing of an overage exemption in the 2017-2018 programme year and data on

those availing of AIM supports. This process involved the Department of

Children and Youth Affairs and Pobal linking the two different datasets and

providing the National Disability Authority with a linked anonymised dataset on

four hundred and eighty-five children who had received an overage exemption

for the 2017 – 2018 ECCE programme year. The National Disability Authority

did an in-depth review and analysis of a sample of forty-seven redacted overage

exemption application files.

Focus groups with key stakeholders

Parents

The engagement with parents consisted of a number of strands, one of which was

a survey of parents who had applied for an ECCE overage exemption. The

Department of Children and Youth Affairs had email addresses for two-hundred

and twenty-one of the approximately 500 parents who had applied for an ECCE

overage exemption for the 2017 – 2018 programme year. One hundred and ten

people commenced the survey and most questions were completed by

approximately ninety respondents giving a response rate of just over 40%. In

addition, twenty-one telephone interviews were conducted with parents who

responded to this survey and who gave consent to be contacted and participate

in a more in depth one to one consultation.

Engagement with other stakeholders

Focus groups were held by the National Disability Authority with other key

stakeholders, including

Early childhood care and education sector, with representatives attending

from Childcare Committees, Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Early

Childhood Ireland, mainstream and special pre-schools providers and Pobal

Education sector, with representatives from Better Start, Department of

Children and Youth Affairs, Department of Education and Skills, National

Council for Curriculum and Assessment, National Council for Special

Education(NCSE), National Educational and Psychological Services (NEPS),

and Túsla (Child and Family Agency)

Health sector, with representatives from the HSE – Progressing Disability

Services

The key areas for discussion during the Focus Groups included:

Brief update on the current overage exemption provision, policy options

and related issues



Perceptions on what might be the drivers for parents seeking exemptions

Potential impacts on the journey of a child through early years and

education

Transitions

Pre-school to Primary

“School Readiness”

Other considerations

Open Policy Debate

The Open Policy Debate took place in the Mansion House Dublin. The Minster

for Children and Youth Affairs, Katherine Zappone, T.D. gave the opening

address. Brief presentations were made by:

the Department of Children and Youth Affairs on the AIM Programme and

the supports provided for in the ECCE programme

the Department of Education and Skills on how children with special

educational needs are supported in the educational system and the resources

provided for such support

the National Disability presented on its role and work in the consultation

process on the review of the overage exemption

The participants were drawn from a range of stakeholders including parents,

service providers, education sector, HSE, early childhood practitioners,

representative organisations from children’s and disability sector and officials

from the Departments of Children and Youth Affairs and Education and Skills.

The key input of the day was from the participants who attended and who

engaged through small groups to address the following topics and related

questions.

Morning session

Topic: What are the pros and cons of the system for ECCE overage

exemptions?

What were the pros and cons of the system when ECCE provision was 1

year?

Have these changed now that the standard ECCE provision is 2 years,

with AIM supports available?

Are there consequences of having a wide age range in an early years

setting?



Are the criteria for applying correct and is this system working?

What are the downstream effects, if any, of exemptions (that is, when the

children progress through the education system, primary and secondary)?

Are transition mechanisms adequate?

Afternoon session

Topic: Having regard to the need for age rules in the ECCE scheme

and the legal requirement to be in school by age 6, and taking the two

programme years of ECCE provision as a given, what is the optimum

structure of ECCE to address the range of issues identified in the

morning session?

How beneficial is it for children to progress through the education system

with their peers or are there any downsides?

What, if any, changes are required to the transition process to facilitate

supporting parents in their choices?

How do we best deal with children whose additional needs arise after

starting in Early Childhood Care and Education?

What messaging needs to take place with parents, early years practitioners

and other stakeholders in order to increase awareness of all scheme

details?

There was a brief panel discussion at the conclusion of the day reflecting on the

key issues that arose during the day.



4. Data analysis of current exemptions

Three of the tasks that the National Disability Authority were requested to

undertake related to examining existing data. Specifically, the National Disability

Authority was asked to:

Review the existing data on overage exemptions, including trends in

applications and approvals

Profile children currently in receipt of overage exemptions

Review existing data and trends in school starting age

The National Disability Authority reviewed and analysed anonymised data on

exemptions granted provided by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs

relating to 2012 to 2017.

The National Disability Authority also reviewed and analysed anonymised data on

those currently availing of an overage exemption in 2017-2018 and data on those

availing of AIM supports. This process involved the Department of Children and

Youth Affairs and Pobal linking the two datasets and providing the National

Disability Authority with a linked anonymised dataset on 485 children who had

received an overage exemption for the 2017 – 2018 ECCE programme year.

The National Disability Authority also did an in-depth review and analysis of a

sample of forty-seven redacted overage exemption application files.

The National Disability Authority was provided with data from the Department

of Education and Skills on Junior Infants Enrolments over a ten-year period from

2006-2016 in mainstream settings, which provided a breakdown of school

starting age data. The Department also provided data on retention rates in

mainstream settings for Junior Infants and for Primary Schools, as a whole, for a

period of nine-years from 2006 to 2015.



Department of Children and Youth Affairs administrative data

Table 1 – Trends in overage exemptions 2013 - 2017

Year 2 years

pro-

rata

Year overage

exemption

Year Other

Exemptions

total

2012 – 2013 3 2013 1 2014 42

2013 – 2014 142 2014 167 2015 13

2014 – 2015 159 2015 109 2016 26

2015 – 2016 258 2016 215 2017 29

2016 – 2017 1 2017 487 2018 1*

2018* 11

2019* 1

2 years

pro-rata

total

563 overage

exemption

total

991 Other

Exemptions

total

111

Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Administrative Data. n. 1665

* Doesn’t represent data for a full year

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs provided the National Disability

Authority with anonymised administrative data on applications for a variety of

types of exemptions approved since 2013. Of the two thousand one hundred and

eighty-two exemptions, one thousand six hundred and sixty-five involved the

child being overage. Of the one thousand six hundred and sixty-five, one hundred

and eleven are recorded under a variety of headings such as ‘transfers’, ‘deferrals’

and ‘second years’ etc., summarised under the “Other Exemptions” heading in

Table 1 above. As can be seen from Table 1 above, of the remaining one

thousand five hundred and fifty-three a total of nine hundred and ninety-one

were recorded as ‘overage exemptions’ and five hundred and sixty-three were

recorded as ‘2 years pro-rata’. ‘2 years pro-rata’ involves two years of part-time

ECCE (included in the figures in Table 1 are only those children who would be

over the upper age limit for the ECCE programme as a result of availing of the ‘2

years pro-rata’). While ‘overage exemption’ refers to children applying to

participate in a year of ECCE in which they will be over the upper age limit for

the ECCE programme (these children may or may not have participated in

ECCE the previous year).

No clear pattern emerges from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs

ECCE overage exemptions Administrative Data. However, in looking at the

years for which full data was available (2013 to 2017) there is a very significant

drop in “2 years pro-rata” from the 2015 – 2016 to the 2016 – 2017 programme

year. This occurs in a period when “overage exemptions” numbers increase



significantly. While it is not possible to say with any certainty why the “2 years

pro-rata” or part-time option numbers plummeted in 2016 – 2017 it may be

worth noting that two major changes that took place in that ECCE programme

year were the introduction of AIM and introduction of multiple ECCE in takes.

This would appear to support the Department of Children and Youth Affairs’

view that the very significant reforms to the ECCE programme warranted a re-

consideration of ECCE overage exemptions.

To get a clearer understanding of who the children who had an ECCE overage

exemption were, the National Disability Authority requested that the

Department of Children and Youth Affairs provide information on those

currently availing of an overage exemption in 2017-2018 and data on those

availing of AIM supports in 2017-2018. The Department, with the assistance of

Pobal, provided the National Disability Authority with anonymised data on 485

children with an ECCE overage exemption who were recorded in the Pobal data

as taking up an ECCE place (or Community Childcare Subvention Plus (CCSP)

place9).

Table 2 – Gender by disability category

Male Female Total

Speech and Language 165 60 225

Developmental Delay 66 27 93

Down Syndrome 23 22 45

ASD 36 9 46**

Unspecified 21 12 33

Intellectual Disability 3 2 5

Cerebral Palsy (including

Cerebral Palsy +

Epilepsy) 5 0 5

Other 18 15 33

Total 337 147 485

Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs and Pobal Administrative Data. n. 485

* 5 was taken as the as the cut off for “Disability Category” (that is. other disability types / medical

conditions with less than 5 children are included in “other”).

** Gender data missing for one individual, therefore row sub totals do not equal total figure

9 Community Childcare Subvention Plus (CCSP) The Community Childcare Subvention Plus

(CCSP) Programme provides support for certain parents to avail of reduced cost childcare costs

at participating privately owned childcare services and also at community not-for-profit childcare

services. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs pays a portion of the childcare costs for

eligible children, with the parent paying the remainder.



Table 2 above shows the gender and disability category of those with an ECCE

overage exemption in the 2017 – 2018 programme year. As can be seen, there

are more than twice as many boys than girls with ECCE overage exemptions.

Two hundred and twenty-five or 46% of those with ECCE overage exemptions

were recorded as having a ‘Speech and Language’ difficulty.

Table 3 – Days per week

Days per week

1 Day 3

2 Days 11

3 Days 26

4 Days 20

5 Days 412

Total 472*


*Data on days attending was only available for 472 of the 485 of the overall dataset

Table 3 shows the numbers of days per week those with an ECCE overage

exemption attended Early Childhood Care and Education. This is significant

as facilitating part-time participation in ECCE had been part of the original

rationale for the ECCE overage exemption. As can be seen in Table 3, four

hundred and twelve or 87% of those with an ECCE overage exemption in 2017

– 2018 attended 5 days a week.

Table 4 – AIM Supports by disability category

Disability Type* No AIM Any AIM Of which AIM Level 7

Speech and Language 167 58 44

Developmental Delay 50 43 34

Down Syndrome 25 20 18

ASD 22 24 19

Unspecified 17 16 14

Intellectual Disability 3 2 2


Cerebral Palsy + Epilepsy) 0 5 4

Other 20 13 11

Total 304 181 146


* 5 was taken as the as the cut off for “Disability Type” (that is. other disability types / medical conditions

with less than 5 children are included in “other”)



Table 4 shows a significant and surprising finding. 304 or 63% of those with an

ECCE overage exemption had no targeted AIM support. Table 5 shows that

264 or 56% of children with an ECCE overage exemption had no targeted AIM

Support and attended ECCE 5 days a week. As can be seen below in Table 5

those with no targeted AIM supports attending 5 days a week constituted up to

70% of children in some disability categories. This low level of overlap between

AIM and ECCE overage exemption and the fact that the vast majority of

children were attending 5 days a week suggested that it would be important for

this review to get a better understanding of the children who have an ECCE

overage exemption.

Table 5 – Children with an ECCE overage exemption without targeted

AIM supports, attending 5 days per week by disability type

Disability Category* Nos. of

children

Nos. with no

AIM supports

attending 5 days

per week

Children with

no AIM

supports

attending 5 days

per week as %

all children by

disability type

Speech and Language 220 154 70%

Developmental Delay 91 42 46%

Down Syndrome 42 18 43%

ASD 45 17 38%

Unspecified 31 13 42%

Intellectual Disability 5 3 60%


Cerebral Palsy +

Epilepsy) 5 0 0%

Other 33 17 51%

Total 472 264 56%


* 5 was taken as the as the cut off for “Disability Type” (that is. other disability types / medical conditions

with less than 5 children are included in “other”).

Review of sample of ECCE overage exemption application files

In addition to reviewing the administrative data made available by the

Department of Children and Youth Affairs the National Disability Authority

requested a sample of redacted ECCE overage exemption application files.

Forty-seven files were received, forty-five of which were relevant (one was

missing most detail and one was not relevant as it related a split place between



two settings rather than an ECCE overage exemption). Each of the 45 files were

read in full and relevant details recorded in a systematic way. What is of

particular interest from the files was how the case for an ECCE overage

exemption was presented. The forty-five files reviewed were approved

applications.

Table 6 – Features of professionals’ letters of support

No reference to the fact that the child attends pre-school 7

No reference to child being observed in pre-school or

reference to pre-school teacher’s observations of child

33

Letter(s) from professionals do not specifically recommend

an overage exemption or additional year of pre-school

12

No opinion / evidence put forward on challenges that the

child may face in the primary school environment

37

Source: NDA analysis of Department of Children and Youth Affairs files. n. 45

As is clear from Table 6, the letters from professionals which must accompany an

application for an ECCE overage exemption typically do not set out evidence or

professional opinion on why a child’s development would be hindered by

progressing to primary school or the challenges that the child would face in the

primary school context nor are they typically based on observing the child in the

pre-school context (or even based on the observations of those who do observe

the child).

Typically, the applications consist of a cover letter from a parent or pre-school

manager stating that the child needs an additional year of pre-school with

letter(s) from professional(s) attached. The letter from professionals typically

state that the child is accessing their service and provide varying degrees of detail

on the child’s disability, delay or health issue. Most but not all contain a

recommendation that the child should remain in pre-school. However, many of

these recommendations simply state that the professional supports the parent’s

view that the child would benefit from staying in pre-school.

Some applications provide great detail on the child’s disability, delay or health

issue, others don’t mention a disability, delay or health issue but merely confirm

that the child is accessing a particular therapy or discipline. Some of the files

which do mention a child’s disability, delay or health are very specific and provide

lots of detail, while others contain nothing more specific than, for example,

“speech issue”, “speech delay” or “concerns about development”.

Any administrative system for deciding on whether or not a child should be

granted an ECCE overage exemption will face the challenge of balancing being

rigorous and not being onerous on parents or professionals. The current system



correctly or incorrectly appears to set a relatively low threshold in terms of

supporting evidence. Moreover, the evidence which is provided is very much

focused on the child’s disability, delay or health issue rather than on

considerations of their current capacity to engage in play and learning in a pre-

school context and any likely challenges that the child would face in participating

and learning in the primary school context.

Department of Education and Skills administrative data

One question that arose in early discussions on ECCE overage exemptions was

whether there was evidence that ECCE overage exemptions were contributing

to more children going to school at an older age. No data was available to

answer this question. However, the Department of Education and Skills has data

on children’s school starting age in mainstream schools. The data records

children’s age by year not by month and the children’s age in January not

September is recorded. However, knowing how many children are 6 and 7 in the

January after enrolling in Junior Infants allows a calculation of how many children

were 5 years and 8 months or more in the September in which they enrolled in

Junior Infants.

Table 7 below shows that the introduction of ECCE (and ECCE overage

exemptions) in 2010 does not appear to have resulted in greater numbers of

older children enrolling in Junior Infants in (mainstream) schools.

Table 7 - Children enrolling in Mainstream Junior Infants

Year State funded

Pre-school

All children

starting

mainstream

school

Children

more than

5years

8months

starting

mainstream

school

% of

Children

more than 5

years 8

months

starting

school

2006 No ECCE 61411 987 1.6

2007 No ECCE 63252 953 1.5

2008 No ECCE 65360 1013 1.5

2009 No ECCE 64874 953 1.5

2010 ECCE one year,

one in-take

63784 821 1.3*

2011 ECCE one year,

one in-take

68745 851 1.2

2012 ECCE one year,

one in-take

71435 858 1.2



Year State funded

Pre-school

All children

starting

mainstream

school

Children

more than

5years

8months

starting

mainstream

school

% of

Children

more than 5

years 8

months

starting

school

2013 ECCE one year,

one in-take

72392 856 1.2

2014 ECCE one year,

one in-take

71662 855 1.2

2015 ECCE one year,

one in-take

71564 848 1.2

2016 ECCE, Multiple

in-takes

68435 926 1.3

Source: Department of Education and Skills

*ECCE was introduced in January 2010 so those going to primary school in September 2010 would only

have been able to avail of ECCE from January to June

The Department of Education and Skills provided data on retention (children

‘staying back and repeating a year of school’) in Primary Schools and in Junior

Infants specifically. This data relates to mainstream schools. Table 9 shows that

retention in primary as a whole almost halved between 2006 and 2015. Table 8

shows that retention in Junior Infants has declined rapidly since 2009. However,

despite the decline in the numbers of children retained in primary school some

children are still retained.

Table 8 – Junior Infants Retained Pupils

Year Boys Girls All

2006 152 121 273

2007 202 138 340

2008 160 123 283

2009 274 192 466

2010 211 190 401

2011 154 115 269

2012 189 118 307

2013 151 116 267

2014 138 134 272

2015 126 92 218




Table 9 – Primary School Retained Pupils

Year Boys Girls All

2006 1,184 939 2,123

2007 1,191 936 2,127

2008 1,136 890 2,026

2009 1,255 1,005 2,260

2010 1,093 910 2,003

2011 1,266 760 2,026

2012 970 756 1,726

2013 777 654 1,431

2014 810 686 1,496

2015 614 506 1,120


It is important to note that the Department of Education and Skills has clearly

outlined its policy on retention. In Circulars 11/01 and 23/03 the Department has

stated that in the context of considerable resources being provided for learning

support the Department’s policy is that children should progress with their class

peers except in exceptional circumstances. There has to be an educational basis

for any retention decision. A school principal’s decision to retain a child must be

taken in consultation with parents, class teacher, learning support / resource

teachers. Schools are also required to develop a programme which records what

approaches will be used to support the child (in the repeated year) and what the

expected benefits are. A school principal must record the decision and bring it to

the attention of the Inspector when they next visit the school.

The Department of Education and Skills has articulated a clear policy and

rationale on retention, established a process, which is based on the child’s

educational best interests and outcomes and ensured that there is some

oversight of decisions on retention.



5. International evidence

Evidence from peer reviewed literature

The full literature review is available in Appendix 3.

Evidence on ‘redshirting’10 or delayed school entry

There are two schools of thought with respect to delaying school entry, or

‘redshirting’:

The “gift of time” – delaying school start to allow the child to mature and

confer a subsequent advantage – maturational view

School can provide a nurturing, scaffolded learning experience which fosters

the child’s learning and development, thus delaying entry to this environment

is counterintuitive – interactionist view

The evidence for the efficacy of either approach is mixed, with the research

showing positive, null and negative effects in terms of academic and socio-

emotional development.

A factor in this may be the motivation of parents for delaying school entry.

Where the parent delays school entry in order for the child to be older and gain

advantage, it is known as positive selection. Where the parent delays school

entry on the basis of a developmental concern, it is known as negative selection.

Some of the available literature did not consider the impact that other factors

may have, for instance, child factors (temperament and behaviour

socio/environmental factors (poverty, ethnicity), to parental factors (mother’s

level of education).

This mix of evidence is illustrated by the studies focussing on the effects of

delayed school entry for children with disabilities:

Fortner and Jenkins (2018) - Is delayed school entry harmful for

children with disabilities?

There is substantial variation in the association between ‘redshirting’ (delayed

school entry) and achievement outcomes across categories of students with

disabilities.

10 ‘Redshirting’ is an American term (which originated in a sports context) which refers to the

practice of delaying age-eligible children entering school in order to allow extra time for

socioemotional, intellectual, or physical growth.



Delayed entry is associated with lower achievement for students with cognitive

disabilities, learning disabilities, and those with other health impairments, but

higher achievement for students with speech/language disorders.

The results suggest that for the vast majority of students with disabilities, delayed

kindergarten entry provides no benefits for students’ academic achievement in

mathematics or reading.

Fortner and Jenkins (2017) - Kindergarten Redshirting: Motivations and

spill-overs using census-level data.

The odds of redshirted students being identified as disabled by the 3rd grade were

1.75 times higher than normal entry students, supporting the view that parents

are delaying their child’s school entry based on developmental concerns.

The cohort of children who had been designated as having an identified disability

by the 3rd grade were identified. Comparing the children among this group who

had and had not been redshirted, redshirted children performed nearly one-third

of a standard deviation lower on the 3rd grade standardised maths test and no

different to normal entry students on the standardised 3rd grade reading test.

Fortner and Jenkins reported a detrimental effect of delayed school entry and

called on educators to encourage parents who have concerns about their child’s

development to enrol them in school as soon as they are eligible to attend. They

further note that public schools have access to better intervention services and

supports which allow for earlier identification of children’s needs, and well-

structured interventions and instruction.

Datar (2006) - Does delaying school entry give children a head start?

Children with disabilities entering kindergarten at age 5 scored significantly lower

on math and reading compared to children without a disability at the same age.

Delaying entrance into kindergarten by 1 year raises children with disabilities’

scores at kindergarten entry beyond that of a 5-year-old entrant with no

disability.

“These results suggest that an extra year out of school compensates to a large

extent for the disadvantage presented by disabilities” (2006, p. 56).

The Datar study examined groups of children using the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten (ECLS-K) to determine whether

kindergarten entrance age has an effect on children’s academic achievement in

elementary school. However, the Datar study did not consider the possible

effects of children’s participation in quality early learning environments prior to

starting school (including those in the delayed year out of school). Datar noted



that in the USA, “children from low socioeconomic status (SES) families are

known to have significantly lower participation rates in public or private early

childhood programs compared to children from high SES families” (2006, p. 56).

Observations on available evidence on delayed school entry

Though elements of both maturational and interactionist rationales appear in the

Irish context for overage exemptions, the evidence base does not make

comparison easy – the Irish debate concerns delaying entry to primary school

where the child would typically remain in the early learning, pre-school context.

Thus the child is deferred in order to mature as well as being exposed to a

formal early learning environment. Much of the available (US) literature is based

on studies which concern children who are deferred and remain at home or

outside of a learning environment.

Evidence on Retention

Much of the research on overage, or ‘old for grade’, children centres on the

practice of grade retention in the US context. This is the practice of holding a

child back at the same level until they are deemed ready to move on. This might

more closely approximate holding the child at pre-school level until they are

‘ready’ to move into Junior Infants.

The evidence for grade retention is extensive and unequivocal – the

practice is not effective and may even be detrimental to the child. Much of the

research has also concentrated on retention at the early grades (particularly

kindergarten) as there was a belief that early retention is less stigmatising and

mitigates future failures. The literature has highlighted the effects of retention on

a number of areas:

A meta-analysis of retention research (Xia and Kirby, 2009) covered 11 empirical

studies on the academic effects of retention in the early years (Kindergarten

or Grade 1). Researchers found that being held back at this stage failed to

improve academic performance and often had negative effects on student

achievement down the line.

Holmes’ meta-analysis (1989) examined the socio-emotional effects of

retention, like personal adjustment, self-concept, attitudes and attendance. He did

not find that attitudes towards school differed between retained and non-

retained students. Regarding personal adjustment, his findings were inconclusive

as the result of ‘no negative effect’ was influenced by large magnitudes of positive

effects from only three studies. Holmes concluded that the evidence for negative

effects consistently outweighs positive outcomes.

Some research specifically examined the effects of being ‘old for grade’:



Roderick (1994) estimated the age-related effects of school drop-out risks,

finding that 36.49% of students had been retained for one or more years (mainly

in the 1st or 7th grade) and of these students, the drop-out rate between the

ages of 16 and 19 was 79.84%. This drop-out rate compared to 27.39% of

promoted students.

Byrd et al. (1996) studied drug usage among children who were old for their

grade. The researchers found that these older students were more likely to

report a range of substance-use and risky behaviours, such as using alcohol,

tobacco, cocaine, and driving in a car with someone who had been drinking.

Jimerson and Renshaw describe adolescents who had been retained as more

independent, less likely to have close parental supervision over their homework

and social experiences, more easily in a position to skip school, and more likely

to have greater access to negative influences in the community and online (p.13).

Byrnes (1989) reported on children’s voices. Children retained in kindergarten

felt that being held back was overwhelmingly negative – 84% of the responses

centred on being “sad”, “bad” or “upset”, with others naming embarrassment.

When the non-promoted children were asked what the worst thing about not

progressing was they named being laughed at and teased (22%), and not being

with friends (16%) among other issues.

There was an emphasis in many studies that retaining or promoting at-risk

students are not sufficient interventions in and of themselves – they should be

accompanied with tailored supports and targets.

Though the literature can highlight interesting avenues and findings on

‘redshirting’ and retention, the evidence should be treated with caution due to

the differences in the US and Irish context. As such, further research is needed

on the effects of delayed school entry for Irish children with disabilities.

Arrangements for pre-school retention in other jurisdictions

In addition to reviewing the published peer reviewed literature on retention and

‘redshirting’, the National Disability Authority collected information on processes

for managing delayed school entry and pre-school retention in other jurisdictions.

This involved gathering information from Government websites and other grey

literature as well as speaking to key informants. England, Scotland, Northern

Ireland, New Zealand and the United States were chosen as the jurisdictions to

review as the National Disability Authority had previously reviewed pre-school

supports for children with disabilities in these jurisdictions.



The full review of the jurisdictions is available in Appendix 2. The following is a

summary of observations on processes for managing delayed school entry and

pre-school retention.

Children are often differentiated by whether they have a diagnosed disability or

not. For children that have a diagnosed disability, many jurisdictions provide a

formal plan for their education (including early years education) which outlines

their support needs, educational goals, school placements etc. For the children

that do not have a diagnosis and plan, decisions appear to take place on an ad

hoc, localised basis.

For parents that defer children without a diagnosis (and one of these educational

plans), funding for additional years of pre-school cannot be presumed. The

jurisdictions where it was clear that funding for an extra year of pre-school

because of a deferred entry was a given were Scotland (for a defined and narrow

cohort of children whose birth month would make them comparatively young for

their class) and New Zealand.

The USA has quantifiable measures for Kindergarten readiness and 33 states

screen pre-school children for Kindergarten readiness. In other jurisdictions,

decisions on readiness (and possible deferral) are based on a collaborative effort

(parents and school officials, professionals involved in supporting the child) and

are based on the best interests of the child.

Some jurisdictions place their focus on what happens before pre-school rather

than the transition between pre-school and primary school – for instance,

additional early years care funding for at-risk two year olds in England, and the

option to enrol children in transitional Kindergarten in California which adopts a

two-year approach to Kindergarten.

Guidance to parents in every jurisdiction reviewed emphasises the role that good

forward planning plays in successful transition. Parents are encouraged to meet

with the new school ahead of time, discuss the child’s needs etc.

Deferred school entry, in many jurisdictions, must be accompanied by clear, pro-

active educational goals for the retained year that are outlined in respect of the

individual student. For example, developmental or educational goals which are

worked towards over the additional year.

Key informants in the jurisdictions with whom the National Disability Authority

engaged emphasised that:



in their jurisdiction there is broad agreement that it in the best interests of

children to move on to school with their peers, except in very exceptional

circumstances

there is unlikely to be any perfect system for determining which children meet

those very exceptional circumstances criteria

key to getting the approach right is supporting children and parents in the

transition to school and in particular having people (key workers or other

professionals) who can reassure parents that schools can adequately support

their child’s development



6. Engagement with stakeholders - parents

Background

Engagement with parents consisted of a number of strands, one of which was a

survey of parents who had applied for an ECCE overage exemption. The

Department of Children and Youth Affairs had email addresses for 221 of the

approximately five hundred parents who had applied for an ECCE overage

exemption for the 2017 – 2018 programme year. (Service providers are the

larger source of applications) one hundred and ten people commenced the

survey and most questions were completed by approximately ninety respondents

giving a response rate of just over 40%.

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs sought permission from survey

respondents to share the survey responses with the National Disability

Authority. The data received by the National Disability Authority had to be

cleaned up in a number of instances. For example, some respondents selected no

disability type but then stated “speech and language” in under “other”. In cleaning

up the data this response was categorised as “Communication difficulty”.

The nature of the available sample limits the inferences, which can be made about

the overall population of all children who have availed of an ECCE overage

exemption. However, given how little information was available, the survey

provides some basis for gaining a better understanding of a sample of children for

whom an application for an ECCE overage exemption was made, focusing on

basic information about the children and on their parents’ concerns.

Children who have an Early Childhood Care and Education

overage exemption

Parents were asked to indicate what age their child would be in September 2018.

The average age (in September 2018) of the children in the survey sample was 5

years 10 months. As is clear from Table 10 the majority of children in the sample

availing of the ECCE overage exemption were still going to be 6 years or less in

September 2018. These children are above the ECCE upper age limit of 5 years

6 months (when finishing the ECCE year in June) but will be 6 years or less at

the start of the school year.

In the survey sample, ninety-three parents stated their child’s gender. Sixty-nine

or 74% were boys and twenty-four or 26% were girls.



Table 10 – Age

6 years or less 70

Over 6 years 13

Source: Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents.

n 83

Table 11 shows the disability types identified by parents. As children could have a

number of disabilities, parents were able to select more than one answer. Of the

twenty-three who selected “other” category and provided details the most

common responses were premature (six responses), genetic disorders (four

responses) and Global Development Delay (two responses).

Table 11 – Disability Type

Disability Type

Communication difficulty 52

Intellectual disability 26

Autism/ASD/Possible ASD 18

Sensory disability 16

Physical disability 13

Behavioural issues 13

Other 23

Total 93*

Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 93

*The 93 respondents could provide more than one answer as many children had

more than one disability

Table 12 – Disability type

All One disability only % with one

disability

only

Communication difficulty 52 23 44

Intellectual disability 26 8 31

Autism/ASD/

Possible ASD

18 9 50

Sensory disability 16 2 12

Physical disability 13 0 0

Behavioural issues 13 1 8

Other 23 13 57 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 93



Tables 12 and 13 provide further detail on the disability type of children for

whom application for ECCE overage exemption as indicated by their parents.

Many children have more than one disability.

The administrative data recorded two thirds of children for whom application for

ECCE overage exemption were made as “speech and language”. It was unclear

whether this reflected the fact that two thirds of the applicants had “speech and

language” issues only or because two thirds of applicants emphasised “speech and

language” in their application and forwarded professional reports relating to

“speech and language”. Of the fifty-two survey respondents who indicated that

the child had a “communication difficulty” twenty-three or 44% indicated that this

was their child’s only disability. Table 13 provides details of the other disabilities,

which those with a “communication difficulty” have.

Survey responses show a more varied pattern of disabilities among the sample of

children than the administrative data suggested. However, it also shows that

twenty-three of the overall ninety-three (or 25%) respondents indicated

“communication difficulty” was their child’s only disability / difficulty. This

suggests, perhaps, that consideration in relation to support provision and ideal

setting for those with a communication difficulty should be one factor in

considering ECCE overage exemptions and the broader considerations around

how language development is supported in pre-school and primary school.



Table 13 – Disability type

Communication

difficulty

Intellectual

disability

Autism/

ASD/

Possible

ASD

Sensory

disability

Physical

disability

Behavioural

issues

Other Total

Communication

difficulty

15 5 12 10 9 7 52

Intellectual

disability

15 1 8 9 3 3 26

Autism/ASD/

Possible ASD

5 1 4 1 6 2 18

Sensory

disability

12 8 4 4 6 3 16

Physical

disability

10 9 1 4 4 2 13

Behavioural

issues

9 3 6 6 4 1 13

Other 7 3 2 3 2 1 23 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 93



Table 14 – When parents applied for an Early Childhood Care and

Education overage exemption

Before

starting

ECCE Pre-

school

In first year of

ECCE Pre-

school*

In second

year of ECCE

Pre-school*

Don’t know/

can’t

remember

Intellectual

disability

3 15 7 1

Communication

difficulty

2 29 18 3

Physical disability 0 9 4 0

Sensory disability 1 9 5 1

Autism/ASD/

Possible ASD

2 5 10 1

Behavioural

issues

0 6 6 1

Other 1 14 5 3

Total ** 6 47 32 8 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 93

* In the programme years 2016 – 2017 and 2017 - 2017 there were 3 entry points for ECCE

Programme; January April and September. The overall point here is that 79 of the 93 children in the

survey sample (or of the 85 whose parents could remember) the ECCE Overage Application was

made after they started in the ECCE Programme

** The 93 respondents could provide more than one answer as many children

had more than one disability

Table 15– Current Pattern of Attendance

Attendance Pattern

Full attendance 86

Part-attendance 7

Total 93 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 93

The origins of the ECCE overage exemption as outlined in Chapter 2 was that it

was introduced to facilitate parents of a child with a disability who wished to start

their child later in ECCE or who wished to split their child’s ECCE “year” over

two years (by attending part-time for two years). To do this, parents presumably

would typically have needed to apply in advance of their child starting in Early

Childhood Care and Education. For this reason, survey respondents were

asked about when they applied for an ECCE overage exemption and about their



child’s current pattern of attendance. Details of when parents applied for an

ECCE overage exemption were also of interest because it would perhaps

provide some indication of whether parents in the sample applied for an Early

Childhood Care and Education overage exemption prior to their child

experiencing ECCE (suggesting a planned delayed entry to school) or during

ECCE programme (suggesting that delayed school entry was not what the

parents had planned when they commenced the ECCE programme).

As Table 15 shows, children in the sample who have availed of an ECCE overage

exemption were in the main (92%) attending ECCE full-time. Table 14 shows

that seventy-nine (or 90% of those who could remember) parents of children in

the sample applied for an ECCE overage exemption while their child was in the

ECCE programme.

This suggests that for the vast majority of parents in the survey sample the

ECCE overage exemption and late school entry was probably not part of their

plan when their child entered the ECCE programme.

It also suggests that the parameters of the ECCE overage exemption and the

need it is perhaps addressing are perhaps quite different from what was intended

when it was introduced.

Table 16 – Source of Initial Information on ECCE overage exemption

Source of initial information

From another parent (including from

another parent on an online forum)

9 (6)*

From a friend, family member, colleague 4 (2)

From a pre-school staff member 58 (44)

From a disability professional 18 (8)

From a health professional 6 (2)

From an education professional 7 (1)

On an online forum 3 (1)

Other 9 (6) Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 88

* Respondents could provide more than one source. The figure in brackets is

where respondents indicated only one source.



Table 17 – Source of Advice on Advantages and Disadvantages of Early

Childhood Care and Education overage exemption

Professionals

From a pre-school staff member 72 (1)*

From a disability professional 77 (9)

From a health professional 24 (0)

From an education professional 43 (0)

Other 6 (0) Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 87

* Respondents could provide more than one source. The figure in brackets is

where respondents indicated only one source.

Tables 16 and 17 provide details of where parents in the survey sample got their

information and advice. In Table16, the number in brackets represents the

number of parents who cited only that one source of initial information. It is clear

(as Table 16 shows) that pre-school staff were central to providing initial

information on the ECCE overage exemption. Given that parents need

supporting evidence from disability or health professionals it is not surprising that

(as Table 17 shows) parents, in the sample, received advice from these

professionals. However, given that the decision not to progress to school would

seem to involve not only considerations of the child but also the school’s capacity

to meet that child’s needs it is significant that only half of parents discussed the

advantages and disadvantages of their child remaining in pre-school rather than

starting school with an education professional.

Eighty of the respondents provided details on the advice that they were given by

the various professionals on the advantages of their child applying for an overage

Exemption. Of the eighty responses, only seven make reference to specific

difference between pre-school context compared to the school context. The

larger pupil to teacher ratio in schools was cited by most of these seven

respondents. Two respondents said that the advice was that their child would do

better in a “non-academic”, less “pressurised” environment.

However, the vast majority of the advice from professionals, as reported by

parents in the survey sample, related to children not having the skills for school

or not being school ready. For example;

“Extra year would help him with social skills and improve his

communication skills. He would have been lost in mainstream school if he

started in September 2017”



“It was felt that [Child’s name] speech and overall maturity would be

better served by the extra year”

“They said he would be much stronger socially by doing the extra year and

hopefully have a better handle on how to control his emotions and also be

less scared of other children”

“All the above [professionals] were in agreement that going forward

would have been too much and she would have not be capable”

“[I] was advised my son was not able for school and that an extra year in

pre-school would be of great benefit to him”

“One more year in preschool would allow him to: 1) Improve social skills

that were somewhat behind 2) improve his behaviour in terms of

following rules 3) Improve his language/communications skills what were

also behind”

“I was advised that the extra year would greatly benefit my son. Following

observation the psychologist said he would develop more skills needed for

starting school. He has a significant speech and language delay and this has

improved throughout the year although he still has a long way to go”

“I was told he needed to be in preschool for an extra year as he was very

delayed for his age and wasn’t ready for primary school”

Sixty-four of the respondents provided detail on the advice given by professionals

on any possible disadvantages of applying for an overage exemption and keeping

the child in ECCE pre-school programme for an additional year. Of the sixty-

four respondents, thirty-seven (or 59%) said that they were advised that there

were no possible disadvantages. Ten respondents cited that the advice from

professionals related to the fact that their child would be older than their class

peers. For example,

“It was noted that he would be amongst the oldest in his class group, but

the benefits outweighed this significantly (they advised). Age is a crude

yardstick for premature children”

“It was highlighted he would be much older than his school peers,

however, he is small of stature and as such it is not a standout issue”

“The only disadvantage was that he may be a year older than some

children in junior Infants next year, however, we have not observed any

obvious indicators of this in pre-school this year”



“Some concerns regarding age on entry but all agreed this was worth it”

Very little of the professionals’ advice, as reported by parents in the survey

sample, on disadvantages of delaying school entry provided much detail on what

the possible disadvantage might be. Some exceptions to this were -

“Ability to fit in with a different group of peers who will be a lot younger.

Dealing with feeling of "staying behind" when rest of pre school group

make the big move to primary school”

“Age when leaving primary school and possibly having expectations too

high on what would improve with the additional year”

“Oldest in the class or possibility of being bored. Neither of which we

think will be relevant. Many children with no delays are almost 6 going to

school. Physically he is tiny so will never appear older. And the Playschool

have reassured us they will continue to challenge him”

“We'd have a child at home for an extra year and despite the "free"

preschool year, that costs a fortune and causes great inconvenience having

to drop our older daughter in one place in the mornings and Sophia at

another”

“She could lose interest as those around her are so young. Lose

confidence in her ability to perform and think she's not growing up. Begin

to develop a negative impression of attending school. Feeling

overwhelmed”

“Bored, may get attached to children”

A number of the other responses did not in fact identify any possible

disadvantages in applying for an overage exemption and keeping the child in the

ECCE pre-school programme for an additional year but, rather, re-stated the

advantages.

Overall, in relation to information and advice it appears that pre-school staff are

very central to providing initial information. Pre-school staff and disability and

health professionals appear to be central to giving advice to parents. This advice

appears to relate to the child’s lack of school readiness skills. Only half of the

parents in the survey sample received advice from educational professionals..

Advice, on how a child could be supported and accommodated in the school

environment, appears to be fairly uncommon, as does the advice from

professionals about any possible disadvantages to children progressing to school

with their peers.



Parents’ concerns

The survey asked parents about the concerns they had which resulted in them

applying for an ECCE overage exemption. As Table 18 shows, the major

concern of parents is their child’s “readiness” rather than with schools’ capacity

to meet their child’s needs. Sixty-three or 71% of parents in the survey sample

indicated that their concern about their child’s readiness was their only concern

in applying for an ECCE overage exemption.

Table 18 – Main Areas of Parents’ Concern


Table 19– Parent’s views of areas where their child would have

difficulty in school

Strongly

agree

Agree Neither

agree

nor

disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Total

Academically 71 10 2 4 1 88

Socially 69 11 6 2 0 88

Behaviourally 52 13 13 9 1 88 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 88

Parents were asked to indicate the extent to which they had concerns in relation

to their child’s potential academic, social and behaviour difficulties had the child

progressed to school in September 2017. Table 19 sets out the parents’

responses. Most parents in the survey sample had concerns in relation to all

three areas they were asked about.

Fifty-one of the parents answered a further open ended question to provide

further detail of their concerns about the ability of the primary school to meet

their child’s needs but many of these responses in fact were restatements of their

child’s disability, medical condition or delay.

Main concern All with this

concern

Those with

only this

concern

I had concerns about my child's readiness for

primary school

86 63

I had concerns about the ability of the available

primary school(s) to meet my child's needs

20 0

Other 7 0



Some parents said they had not considered the school’s ability to support their

child.

“I hadn't given any thought to the school’s ability, I was just concerned

with my daughter’s readiness”

“Cannot speak for the school, I just felt that the extra year would greatly

improve his readiness for school as developmentally he’s about a year to

eighteen months behind his peers”

“No issues with the school, it was knowing my child was not ready for

primary school environment”

The most frequently mentioned issue was class size / pupil to teacher ratio, which

was mentioned by nine of the parents.

“Was worried as he is a traumatised hyper vigilant little boy. Very quiet

easily overlooked in crowd of peers”

“More kids are in same room than in preschool. Lost in communication”

“Larger class - child has bad attention span and very easily distracted needs

routine breaks wouldn’t be given a curriculum to suit his pace”

“My child would have been left behind socially and academically in a larger

group. He would also not have received the attention he needed in a

stricter environment”.

“Completely different. Class to teacher ratios compared to a Montessori

class - too many examples to list”

Eight of the parents mentioned the lack of SNA / one-to-one supports.

A number of parents mentioned the availability of school or class placements and,

in particular, Special Class placements and Autism Classes in particular.

“Lack of ASD classes in the local area….”

“Lack of ASD classes in the local area. Waiting times for diagnosis with

the HSE meant he wasn’t able to be placed on a list for an appropriate

class in time for primary school. Lack of supports available in primary

school. On a waiting list for early intervention treatment from the HSE.

No guidance given from AIM scheme about transitioning to primary

school”



“We were told by primary school that there was no place available in Sept

2018”

“Lack of ASD units in Limerick and availability of SNA assistance in main

stream school”

“Six refusals of main stream school that couldn't accommodate her needs.

Preschool was easier but still difficult”

Two parents mentioned that the special education resource allocation systems

were a factor for them

“As we were awaiting assessment (only just being done now after 2 years)

we were worried the school would not have resources for him without a

diagnosis”

“Staff training on anaphylaxis and unawareness of symptoms of hypo

thyroidism also the SENO granted zero hours resource because she was

unaware of the condition”

A number of parents highlighted school rules or norms for children, which they

felt, were a barrier for their child progressing.

“I believe my child will not meet school expectations related to existing

school rules. She can't follow commands due poor English and related to

this poor communications skills. Mentally she is not ready for school”

“She has no speech so I was hoping a year would give her more time and

also she finds it hard following instruction and sitting in the one spot”

“Our son needs to learn to play in an environment where he is free to

explore his environment without restriction. The primary school requires

certain skills physically, emotionally and socially and he has none of those

and needs to maximum time and input in order to reach his potential”

Despite the above quotes it is the case that most respondents’ concerns were

expressed in relation to their child’s ‘school readiness’ and the nature of the

disability, development delay or health issue which their child had rather than the

school’s capacity to support their child.

AIM supports

One of the surprising features which emerged from the administrative data was

the low levels of overlap between AIM recipients and those with an ECCE

overage exemption. The survey asked parents about their awareness of AIM and,



whether, their child was receiving AIM supports. The survey also asked parents

about HSE funded supports, as a question had arisen as to whether the low level

of overlap between AIM recipients and those with an ECCE overage exemption

could be explained by the fact that those with an Early Childhood Care and

Education overage exemption but not receiving targeted AIM supports were

receiving in-pre-school supports from the HSE or from HSE funded agencies.

Tables 20 and 21 provide details of the levels of awareness of parents in the

survey sample of AIM and of targeted AIM supports applied for and received.

Sixty-eight or 77% of parents in the survey sample said that they were aware of

AIM. Two thirds had discussed AIM with their pre-school provider and half of

parents indicated that their child was receiving a targeted AIM support. Table 21

provides a breakdown of the targeted AIM supports received by children in the

survey sample.

Table 20 – Awareness and use of AIM Supports

Are you aware that AIM supports are available to children with

disabilities participating in the ECCE pre-school programme?

68

Did your pre-school provider discuss applying for AIM supports

within the ECCE pre-school programme with you?

56

Did your pre-school provider apply for AIM supports specifically

for your child?

51

Does your pre-school provider receive any AIM supports

specifically for your child?

43


Table 21 – AIM Levels Accessed

AIM Targeted Support Levels

Level 4 6

Level 5 3

Level 6 1

Level 7 24

Level 5 and 7 5

Could not recall or unclear 4




Table 22 – AIM Supports by Disability Type

Disability type All AIM No-

AIM

Not sure if

receiving AIM

Intellectual disability 26 19 6 1

Communication

difficulty

52 23 20 8

Physical disability 13 9 4 0

Sensory disability 16 11 3 2

Autism/ASD 18 10 5 2

Behavioural issues 13 7 3 3

Other 23 9 9 2 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 88

Table 22 provides a breakdown of those receiving AIM supports by disability

type. In the survey sample of parents, there are a large group of children with a

“Communication difficulty” and many of these children are not receiving AIM

supports. Given that parents have to be involved in applying for targeted AIM

supports it seems more likely that more of the “not sures” are not receiving

targeted AIM supports. That suggests that in the survey sample somewhere

between just under a quarter and just under a third of children with the ECCE

overage exemption are children with a communication difficulty who do not have

any targeted AIM supports.

Table 23 – Receiving HSE funded in-pre-school support or HSE funded

special pre-school by Disability Type

Disability type All HSE funded in-pre-

school support or

special pre-school

No HSE funded in-pre-

school support or

special pre-school


Communication

difficulty

52 8 44



Autism/ASD 18 2 16


Other 23 3 20 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 88

The low levels of overlap between children with targeted AIM supports and

children with ECCE overage exemption, which was indicated in the

Administrative data, had prompted the question of whether many of the children



with an ECCE overage exemption but without any targeted AIM supports were

receiving HSE or HSE funded in-preschool supports. Survey respondents were

asked whether they received HSE or HSE funded in-preschool supports and a

follow up question to describe those supports. Many of those who answered

“yes” to the first question then provided details of HSE or HSE funded supports

but not HSE or HSE funded in-preschool supports. Therefore, only those who

described pre-school assistant hours and special pre-school placements were

included. As Table 23 shows there were nine children receiving such supports in

the survey sample. Eight of the nine children were children with an intellectual

disability.

Interestingly, Table 24 shows that most of the children who were receiving HSE

or HSE funded in-preschool supports were also children who were receiving

targeted AIM supports. Of the thirty-five children in the survey sample not

receiving targeted AIM supports only two children were receiving HSE or HSE

funded supports in-preschool supports.

Table 24 – Those Receiving AIM Targeted Supports and HSE funded

in-pre-school support or HSE funded special pre-school

All HSE Pre-

school

Special

Needs

assistance

hours

Part-

time

with

special

needs

pre-

school

Receiving targeted AIM supports 43 5 3

Not sure if receiving targeted AIM

supports

10 0 0

Not receiving targeted AIM

supports

35 1 1

Not receiving targeted AIM

supports, HSE Pre-school Special

Needs assistance hours or part-time

with special needs pre-school

33 N/A N/A




Table 25 - Those Receiving AIM Targeted Supports and HSE funded in-

pre-school support or HSE funded special pre-school by Disability Type

Disability type All Not receiving

targeted AIM

supports, HSE Pre-

school Special Needs

assistance hours or

part-time with special

needs pre-school

Not sure and not

receiving targeted

AIM supports, HSE

Pre-school Special

Needs assistance

hours or part-time

with special needs

pre-school


Communication

difficulty

52 18 26



Autism/ASD 18 4 6


Other 23 9 11

Total 93 33 43 Source: Department of Children and Youth Affairs Survey of ECCE overage exemption parents. n 88

Table 25 shows that thirty-three (or 37.5%) parents in the survey sample said

that their child who has an ECCE overage exemption didn’t receive targeted

AIM supports or HSE or HSE funded supports in-preschool supports. If the

“not sures” are added this rises to forty-three or roughly half of the survey

sample. Again, children with communication difficulties constitute a significant

proportion of the total.

Table 26 – Discussion of Aim Supports for those who received initial

information on Early Childhood Care and Education overage

exemptions from Preschool Staff

Yes No Not

sure,

can’t

remem

ber

Total

Pre-school Discussed Aim with

Parents

38 (68%) 13

(23%)

5 (9%) 56

Pre-school Applied for Targeted

Aim Supports

33 (60%) 17

(30%)

6 (10%) 56




Of the fifty-eight parents in the survey sample who indicated that they received

their initial information on ECCE overage exemptions from pre-school staff fifty-

six provided details in relation to AIM. As Table 27 shows, just over two thirds

of these parents also said that pre-school staff members discussed AIM with

them. If the findings of survey sample are representative of the full population of

those with an ECCE overage exemption it would be concerning that some pre-

school staff are discussing ECCE overage exemptions with parents (somewhere

between almost a quarter and a third of the relevant parents in the survey

sample) but not AIM supports.

Primary school

Table 27 shows the intended school placement of children in the survey sample.

78% of survey respondents plan to send their child to a mainstream class in a

mainstream school.

Table 27 – Primary School choices

School place options

A mainstream class in a mainstream primary school 67

A special class in a mainstream primary school 7

A special primary school 3

Don't know or haven't decided yet 9


Parent interviews

One of the survey questions asked parents whether-or-not they wished to take

part in a follow-up phone interview with the National Disability Authority. From

those who did consent, the National Disability Authority sought to recruit a mix

of interviewees whose experience was broadly reflective of the overall survey

sample. Factors such as gender, location, disability type, receiving/not receiving

targeted AIM supports were taken into consideration. Twenty-one of the

parents were recruited and interviewed over the phone in May and June 2018.

An interview guide was developed. Interviews were semi-structured.

Some context, which needs to be borne in mind when reading the text below, is

that each of the parents interviewed had experienced the impact that a second

year of the ECCE programme had on their child. However, none of the parents

could know whether-or-not outcomes would have been different for their child

had they progressed to school in September 2017, which had very much been the

plan for most of those interviewed. Secondly, the outcome in the interviewees’

experience of the ECCE overage exemption process was getting a full second

year of ECCE for their child (when other children were receiving between



either a one year of ECCE or a year and a number of months depending on their

birth month). From 2018, all children will be able to avail of two full years of

Early Childhood Care and Education. Therefore, those applying for an

ECCE overage exemption in the future will be applying in a different context to

the context experienced by the interviewees.

Benefit of time

Interviews were extremely positive about ECCE overage exemptions. Many

interviewees described the progress that their child had made in the additional

year in Early Childhood Care and Education. None of the interviewees

expressed any regret that their child had not progressed to school in September

2017. Many described applying for an ECCE overage exemption as the ‘best

decision that they had ever made’.

Interviewees confirmed the survey findings that, by in large, parents did not

consider or apply for an ECCE overage exemption in advance of their child

being in an ECCE setting. The decision to apply for an ECCE overage

exemption was brought about because parents felt (typically after an initial

consultation with the pre-school staff) that their child needed more time in pre-

school or because more time was needed to arrange assessments, reports or

conformation of a particular educational placement.

A number of interviewees mentioned that they had come to the decision that if

their application for the ECCE overage exemption was turned down they would

not have sent their child to school, but instead pay privately for them to be in

pre-school, because they believed so strongly that their child ‘needed more time’

to be ready for school.

“With a little more time we feel he just might be OK for junior

infants next year”

“We had intended to send in September 2017 but decided to give

him more time and see what the assessments done as part of the

AON [Assessment of Need under the Disability Act 2005] would

determine. We did not realise that you needed to apply for an

overage exemption until the pre-school teacher explained the

ECCE age range rules. But, we had made our decision. He was

going to stay in ECCE either way even if we had to pay privately”

Information and joined up services

In describing how they came to decide to apply for an ECCE overage

exemption, many interviewees described their experience from when their child

was first diagnosed with a disability and/or health condition or from when they



became aware that their child’s development was behind his or her peers in

some respect.

Many interviewees described how fragmented the system of support for young

children was and how hard it was to not only access services but to access basic

information. While one could say that it is not directly related to ECCE overage

exemption, many parents were describing their past experience of delays and

missed opportunities which resulted, they believed, in their child not being ‘ready

to go to school’.

“I was getting most of my information from social media and other

parents. I was completely at sea as how was I supposed to know who to

turn to or where to go – I had no idea as to what the options were

…..eventually, when I went to the local school which had a class for

children with autism I was told “you’re too late…we are full for next year”

“Parents have to go figure out everything. It is back to the parents

to demand and drive everything and even then the system is very

slow in responding… little knowledge of AIM and, even then, it

was left to the parents to go figure out what levels of support your

child may need …processes are not aligned – so even when I got

assessments etc from HSE these were “of no value” when it came

to the AIM process.

“Huge sense of having to constantly start over again at each of the

different stages…..even down to having to photocopying reports

and explain it all again when it came to SENO etc”

“I think that the pre-school supports and school supports are very

disconnected. I think that AIM and the supports available in school

should be joined up……. When we spoke to the Early Intervention

Team, who knew our daughter, about engaging with the school in

advance of September on differentiating the curriculum they said

that they would have to wait till the infants teacher called them.

That seems crazy to me. I think that support provided at home, in

the pre-school and in school need to be joined up”

Even basic information on AIM and the ECCE scheme was an issue for some

parents.

“It was only in response to an AIM application that the pre-school

became aware that he was actually outside the age range for

ECCE”



“They [national disability service provider] didn’t know about AIM.

There was confusion initially as we were informed that he may not

quality for AIM because he gets supports from [name of national

disability service provider]… a lot of parents don’t know about

AIM”

It was clear from many interviewees that the ECCE overage exemption had

become a necessity for them they believed because other parts of the system

that provide support for young children had not been available to them in a

timely way.

“Getting the assessment on time and getting whatever help and

support the child needed in a timely manner may have meant that

he would have been ready in September 2017. But parents feel that

the extra year has made a huge difference”

“If my daughter had received early intervention at the appropriate

time she may have been ready for school in September 2017 and I

may not have had to give up my career”

“Well obviously if we had gotten the diagnosis earlier he would

have been able to go to school in September 2017 as a Unit place

could have been organised for him. We first sought a diagnosis for

him from the HSE when he was two years of age. He was on a HSE

waiting for two and a half years. So, by the time we got the

diagnosis from the private psychologist it was too late to make

arrangements for September 2017”

“Getting assessments on time and getting the help and support he

needed in a timely manner may have meant that he would have

been ready for school in September 2017”

“The impact of not accessing the required supports was that we

lost sixteen months of professional intervention that would have

made a difference. We had been accessing a private therapist and

this was challenging financially, as we were down to one salary

[parent had taken a career break to support their child with a

disability]. Eventually, we went for the AON [Assessment of Need

under the Disability Act 2005] and got a diagnosis and a better

understanding of what was wrong and access to a multi-disciplinary

team”

Although, not directly related to the ECCE overage exemption review, most of

the interviewees mentioned that they paid privately for a substantial amount of



therapy, assessments and other supports related to their child’s disability. Many

parents also mentioned giving up careers or taking career breaks to try to

coordinate their child’s supports and get them ready for school.

Views on children’s readiness for school

Interviewees described why they were concerned about their child. It was clear

in the parent interviews that in many cases the parent had very strong views on

their child’s school readiness. In some cases, the professionals appeared to be

supporting them in their application rather than professionals proactively advising

that children are not ready for school.

“Entirely our decision…the pre-school said he was not ready.

[service provider name] thought it was ok for him to go once the

right supports were put in place… at the end of the day we felt he

was not ready and eventually got a psychologist’s letter with the

support of the Speech and Language Therapist to back this up.

[service provider name] agreed in the end once we had made the

decision”

How the parents described school readiness differed significantly.

“We weren’t confident that he would do well… he had no interest

in reading or writing and no concept of numbers… I started school

myself very young and I think that being younger was a drawback

though my whole time in school”

“It’s really to do with immaturity, only in the last few months he is

interested in letters and words. There is the speech delay and he

has a lot of tantrums”

“We just wanted to get him into a better space in himself to be able

to go”

“We felt that he just wasn’t ready… he could hold a conversation

but you might need to step in and explain to someone what he

said… we worried that if he went to school in September 2017 he

might be held back”

“Poor grip was the immediate issue but also poor concentration

and the ability to follow instructions and sit down”

The benefit of more time was also conveyed in relation to parents, many of

whom expressed their own anxiety about their child with a disability or delay

starting school.



“For me just having the additional year was a life-saver”

Additionally, some parents interviewed were educated in countries other than

Ireland where the school starting age was 6 or 7 and who believe that 4 or 5 was

very young to start school even for children who had no disability or delay.

“In [name of another country] where we are from, children go to

school at 7 so I think that 4 is very young”

“I went to school at 6 in [name of another country] and I don’t

think that I was ready at that age for some of the tasks that school

children have to do. I was horrified when we thought that we might

have to send our son to school at 4 years and 9 months”

Primary school environment

In keeping with the survey findings, not that many of the interviewees raised

concern about the Special Education supports that their child would receive in

primary school. Although some had, as noted above, used the time afforded by

the ECCE overage exemption to access what they perceived to be the

appropriate reports or to ensure that their child got a particular education

placement.

Some parents raised the issue of primary school curriculum and expectations.

“I was conscious of the importance of play for him. I think that

there needs to be more information on this and what is done in

junior infants”.

This raises some questions, perhaps, as to how well Aistear is embedded in

primary schools or, at least, how well Aistear is understood by parents and

communicated to them.

As mentioned above, many parents interviewed emphasised the things that their

child would not have been able to do in September 2017, which ranged from

writing to being mature enough to understand the implications of their allergy but

most frequently related to sitting down and concentrating or staying on task. This

raises questions about how some of these issues are dealt with in the infant years

in primary schools but also perhaps questions about how schools’ capacity to

deal with these issues is communicated to parents.

Where parents had engaged with schools the conversation often seemed to be

that parents or perhaps pre-school teachers know best in relation to school

readiness rather than a conversation around how children at different levels of

development are supported to participate.



“I did speak to the teacher informally and she said that if we think

that he is not ready then we shouldn’t send him”

“The school principal said that you’d be very unwise not to listen to

the pre-school teacher as they know her. They said that she would

be fine in infants but first class might be more difficult. They said

that pre-school teachers know their kids and they generally get

these decisions right”

Many interviewees expressed the view that despite their child’s disability or delay

that in primary school there would be more pressure to have certain skills or

behave in a certain way.

“He wasn’t ready. He wasn’t ready to be an environment where

there is pressure to develop. I am a teacher and I knew that if he

started the phone calls would start, that I’d be in and out of the

school being told he can’t do this and he can’t do that. I didn’t want

that for him. He wasn’t ready”

Flexibility

As mentioned above, most interviewees described how their child had

participated in their ECCE year, initially in anticipation of progressing to school

the following September, but that during the course of that year, they had come

to the view that their child was not ready to progress and had applied for an

ECCE overage exemption. A small minority of parents mentioned that

because of their child’s disability their child could not attend ECCE full time

when they were within the ECCE age range and so flexibility was required to

allow for a period of part-time ECCE followed by a period of full-time ECCE

prior to starting school.

“I think that a lot of children with Down Syndrome would only be

able to attend ECCE part-time when they are 3. In our first year of

the ECCE programme we probably had 40 or 50 appointments

[with therapists and other supports] for our daughter. I kept her at

home on Friday just to allow her to recover because she was so

tired. I think that needs to be taken into account. I think that there

needs to be flexibility”

Earlier start in the Early Childhood Care and Education programme

Given that all children will be able to participate in two years of the ECCE

programme from September 2018 interviewees were asked if they thought that

availing of two years of ECCE would have enabled their child to go to school in

September 2017. Given that the children, who had availed of the overage

exemption were in their second year of ECCE, the question related to whether



the parents believed that if their child had started ECCE earlier and completed

two years before they reached the ECCE upper age limit would they have been

ready to progress to school with their age peers. Interviewees’ views on this

question were mixed. Some believed that if they had been able to access

supports in a timely way and had been able to avail of the ECCE programme

earlier that their child may have been ready to start school in September 2017.

However, others believed that regardless of when they had started in the ECCE

programme, their child would not have been able to start school until they

were nearly 6 years of age.

“In theory yes [child’s name] would have progressed with age peers

after 2 years of ECCE but that very much depends on what

supports are available”

“Probably not in my case as it had to do with maturity and before

he turned five years of age he was neither emotionally or speech-

wise mature enough for school”

Birth month effect and children without a recognised disability

Some parents highlighted that part of their motivation for applying for an ECCE

overage exemption was that their child missed out on additional ECCE ‘year’

because of their birth month. This is in the context of multiple entry points with

differing ECCE entitlement for children depending on which intake they qualified

for.

“He was very close to the ECCE eligibility cut off. If he had been

born a few weeks later he would automatically have been entitled

to the extra ECCE year”

“He was only over the cut off by 11 days to qualify for a second

year”

Some parents were more explicit and suggested that they didn’t feel that the

requirement to have a disability to avail of an ECCE overage exemption was

appropriate

“I think that there should be less emphasis on disability for children

getting an exemption. Some children are just not ready and I don’t

that that should need to be described as a disability”

“I think that the overage exemption has made a remarkable

difference to our child’s life. The only change that I would make is

that I would make it clearer that it is not restricted to children with

a diagnosed disability”



7. Engagement with stakeholders – Early Childhood Care

and Education providers, Education and Health

professionals

Roundtable with Education stakeholders

The National Disability Authority held a formal roundtable discussion on overage

exemptions with education stakeholders on the 16thof April. Attendees included

representatives from:

National Disability Authority

Department of Children and Youth Affaires

Department of Education and Skills

National Educational Psychological Service

National Council for Special Education

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

Aim - Better Start

Túsla

Some of the themes which emerged were

Understanding parents’ motivations

Pre-school years can be difficult years for parents of children with disabilities.

Many parents may still be coming to terms with their child’s disability. Parents

may wish to defer school entry because they believe that their child may be

ready for mainstream (rather than special school) if their child is older

Parents’ views of ‘school readiness’ is often shaped by their own school

experience, which is likely to have been in a period where there was much

less support available for children with special needs in schools

More generally, there was a view that some parents have a misunderstanding

of ‘school readiness’, in that they believe that children need to have attained

certain academic skills before they are ready for school

Where pre-school is a positive experience for children with disabilities and

their parents the familiarity of pre-school can be hugely reassuring for parents

The lower ratios in pre-school can also seem like a significant advantage to

parents considering a overage exemption



Transitions

Agreement that there was a lot of work to be done on the pre-school to

primary school transition for children with disabilities. The National Council

for Curriculum and Assessment has done work looking at the concept of the

‘ready school’, that is looking at how schools can ensure that they are ready

for the child rather than looking at the child’s ‘school readiness’

Creating ‘ready schools’ is about ensuring that certain structures are in place

in schools. It is not a quick fix. Having structures in place to support all

students takes time and effort but the ‘ready school’ should be the focus

There is a disconnect between the supports at pre-school and at the primary

level. It is understandable that it is confusing for parents. We need to get to a

place where it is easier for parents to understand what supports will be in

place for their child in school

There are still barriers to pre-schools and schools sharing information. While

there are examples of where this is done well locally there are also examples

of where local pre-school and schools do not engage with each other at all

If pre-schools staff are to be more involved in supporting transitions this will

require structures to be put in place and funding to allow for planning and

work on supporting transitions

Impact on children

Children being significantly older than their class peers is less of a problem in

the younger primary years but it can become more problematic as children

reach 5th and 6th class and secondary school. Being bigger and more physically

developed can have an impact on self-esteem

Children in special schools are typically educated until they are 18 so for

some children a delayed school start will mean that they will have less years in

school

Continuum of education

Universal early education is very new in Ireland. From 2018 we will have two

full years of ECCE followed by primary and post-primary school. That is now

our continuum of education but it is not clear that it has been considered as a

continuum. The question now should be how do we support children with

disabilities across the continuum of education

Discussion with early years stakeholders

The National Disability Authority met with a small group of Early Years providers

in February 2018.



Early Years stakeholders believed that ECCE overage exemptions can be

beneficial for some children and families. Children and family circumstances differ

so much and the ECCE overage exemption allows a degree of flexibility, which

was required by some children and families.

Examples of where Early Years stakeholders believe that ECCE overage

exemption have been beneficial include:

Where a child is not toilet trained

Where a child has been in a special pre-school but the family wishes that they

would do a year of mainstream ECCE before starting school

A disability or special educational need was not evident when a child started

pre-school and the family needed time to accept it

Children with communication and some behavioural difficulties who don’t

have a diagnosed disability

Where a family hasn’t got reports in on time to secure an SNA in primary

school

Where the local primary school is less than enthusiastic about enrolling a

child with a disability

Where a family is very anxious about their child starting school

Where a child has some development delay and they are going to be very

young in their class as a result of their birth month

Early Years stakeholders believe that the implementation of Aistear in primary

schools is patchy. A play-based curriculum is important for all children but it

really suits some children with disabilities. Until the infants years are more play

based some parents and in particular parents of children with disabilities will be

reluctant to move their children from an ECCE environment.

Engagement between parents of children with disabilities and Special Education

Needs Organisers is often not as good as it could be. The Early Years

stakeholders felt that there is nobody saying to these parents that their child will

receive the supports they need in school.

Flexibility on ECCE programme participation is going to be required even post-

September 2018 when all children will have two years of Early Childhood Care

and Education. Some children, early years stakeholders believed, may need a third

year of Early Childhood Care and Education.



Discussion with health stakeholders

The National Disability Authority met with a small group of health stakeholders,

all of whom are clinicians with experience of working with young children, in May

2018.

Health stakeholders believed that it was in the best interests of the vast majority

of children with disabilities to progress to school with their age peers, though in

very exceptional circumstances delayed school entry could be in a child’s

interests.

In the experience of the Health stakeholders the split intake had been valuable

for children with a disability as there are cases where a child might not be ready

for ECCE in September but might, for example, be ready in January.

Health stakeholders believed that most children with a disability, diagnosed with a

disability at birth or very early in life, would have a plan in place to ensure that

they are ready for school with their age peers, including having whatever reports

are required to access supports in the education system. However, for some

children whose disability emerges closer to school starting age there can be

challenges. For example, by the time some families receive a diagnosis of Autism

there may not be time to secure a place in Special Class for the following

September and Health stakeholders were aware of ECCE overage exemptions

being applied for in such contexts.

In considering possible improvements to the ECCE overage exemption, Health

stakeholders cautioned against a standardised health / diagnostic assessment being

subsequently used as a gatekeeping mechanism.



8. Open policy debate

Introduction

The Open Policy Debate, hosted by the Departments of Children and Youth

Affairs and Education and Science, was held on 28 May 2018 in the Mansion

House, Dublin, to explore the issues and possible solutions to the proposed

changes to the overage exemptions within the ECCE scheme.

The Open Policy Debate formed part of a wider review of the matter undertaken

by the National Disability Authority. The event brought together parents,

practitioners in the Early Years Sector, teachers, HSE clinicians working with

young children, relevant statutory agencies, and organisations involved in the

delivery of the ECCE programme and with expertise on children and families

who had availed of the exemption in the past.

A Background Paper and an Agenda were issued in advance of the Open Policy

Debate (see Appendix 4.1). The meeting was addressed by Ms Katherine

Zappone TD, Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. The process on the day

involved short inputs from experts, discussion in small, mixed groups, feedback to

plenary sessions, and a final plenary discussion.

The debate

Throughout the event, there was considerable consistency in the issues identified

as requiring attention. As the ECCE programme itself develops, and there is

positive and planned transition process of children from pre- to primary school

as standard practice, then it was anticipated that the need for ECCE overage

exemptions would reduce.

The detailed notes at Appendix 4. record observations, ideas and proposed

solutions from small group discussions at the Open Policy Debate. This summary

concentrates on the priorities which were identified during the Open Policy

Debate.

Overall, the outcome of the Open Policy Debate suggests that ECCE overage

exemptions are symptomatic, rather than, central and that the priority is to

tackle systemic issues, dealing with a range of issues in parallel. As the systemic

issues are addressed then the demand for exemptions are expected to reduce.

Some of the issues identified are already subject of attention by the Department

of Children and Youth Affairs, the Department of Education and Skills, and other

Agencies, as the Background Paper sets out, and there will undoubtedly be

improvements on different fronts in the months and years to come.



However, for parents and many others attending the Open Policy Debate, and

for those with children with special/additional needs making choices now and in

the short term, medium-term changes are viewed as of little advantage. The

window of opportunity for the individual child is small and if missed there are life-

long consequences.

The Early Childhood Care and Education programme

It is important to note that the participants in the Debate were generally positive

about the ECCE programme, which has been in place since 2010. They

recognised that it is a relatively short period in which to establish a national

intervention, acknowledging that it is already making a difference to children,

including, those with special/additional needs, and that it is still a programme in

development.

In an evolving situation where there is ambition across Government to realise an

Early Years provision that is of a high standard, the challenge is how best to

introduce the changes with the maximum benefit and the least disruption, as

systems gear up to the standards required. Further, the changes happening in

both the pre- and primary school systems demands strong collaboration between

the two Government Departments, the Department of Children and Youth

Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills, if the changes are to be well

planned and executed without gaps or inconsistencies

Guiding principles

At a high level of principle, underpinning statements emerged during the Open

Policy Debate which should guide the ECCE programme and the decisions

required, and the evolution of overall pre-school, pre- to primary school, and

primary school system coherence. They are:

The child at the centre, the child’s needs as paramount

The parent as an informed and engaged decision maker, respected as the

primary educator

The providers and practitioners working in collaboration to create effective

services and

Streamlined pathways

The policy, practice and supports facilitating the above

Language

A final point to consider is the use of language. On the one hand there is a

commitment to inclusion and integration, but the use of the terms ‘special’ and



‘additional’ in describing the needs of some children, may have the effect of

differentiation. An alternative approach is to refer to all children as having diverse

needs. A related point was that supports to children with ‘special’ or ‘additional’

needs, can result in ‘inclusive segregation’, rather than supports in place across a

setting which are meeting the diverse needs of many children.

Systemic issues

The Open Policy Debate resulted in observations about the ECCE exemption

system and a more comprehensive set of observations about the overall systemic

issues, which should be addressed. Each is summarised here:

8.1 The overage exemption

This issue prompted the event, and the discussion on the day suggested that as

the whole system improved then the requirement for ECCE overage

exemptions would reduce, although it might never disappear completely if a child

centred, as opposed to an administrative, approach was at the root of decision-

making. There was concern that if the exemption is not available now and in the

next few years, then some children would lose out on the additional benefits

intended by the extension of the universal programme to two years.

In considering the issues, much of the discussion focussed on the wider systemic

matters, rather than, an argument being made for the ECCE overage exemption

in isolation. However, while none of the contributions suggest the exemption

should disappear, many identified flaws in how it is operating, and that these

could be addressed. For example, there are suggestions about explaining the

purpose of the ECCE overage exemption more clearly, defining the criteria and

rules for application so that it is led by the needs of the child, linking it to the

AIM profile, and ensuring that parents are fully aware of how and when to apply.

There were questions as to the level of analysis available on the use and

effectiveness of the exemptions to-date, and that more time is necessary to

assess effectiveness.

In practice, the numbers availing of the exemption at about five hundred annually,

was viewed as small, and capable of reducing naturally as other parts of the

system improved and parents became more confident and could see that the

transition to primary school would be successful for their child.

One participant posed the interesting question as to whether there would be a

need for exemptions at all, if a parent could choose which 2 years to send their

child to pre-school, provided the child reached Primary School by the age of 6

years. An exception to this might be the child who receives a diagnosis late, or

where it becomes apparent in the ECCE cycle that the child is not ready for

primary school.



Different scenarios

To aid the discussions at the Open Policy Debate participants were given a series

of possible scenarios to consider (see below) and most tables gave some thought

to each of the alternatives. Generally, Option B was considered the best of the

three outlined, however, it is important to note that it was not endorsed as a

solution.

Table 28 - Scenarios for Addressing the overage exemption Issue - a

prompt to the Debate

Factors for

consideration Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Preferred

optimum

option from

the table

Number of

intakes Single

(September)

Single

(September)

Two

(September or

January)

Minimum start

age 2 years 8

months to 3

years 7

months

(depending on

date of birth)

2 years

6month to 3

years 6

months

(depending on

date of birth)

2 years

8months to 3

years 7

months

(depending on

date of birth)

Max offer Up to two

programme

years

Up to two

programme

years

Up to two

programme

years

Maximum /

minimum

school starting

age

4 years 8

months to five

years 7

months

4 years 6

months to 5

years 11

months

4 years 6

months to 5

years 7

months

Flexibility Fixed

(depending on

date of birth)

Choice of

which

September

you start

Two choices

of start point

Advantages For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables

Disadvantages For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables

Overage

exemption

possible

options

For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables



In summary, there are two arguments advanced for the ECCE overage

exemption –

1. Ensuring that all children receive the full two-year value of ECCE and

2. As an important mechanism in establishing the best possible basis for

transition to Primary School for a child with special/additional needs,

where the overall suite of child and family support systems are not yet

functioning optimally.

Overall, participants inclined to the view that the ECCE overage exemption

should be retained for a period, about two years or so, with clearer guidelines

for application, better information to parents about its function, and monitoring

and evaluation of its take up and the impact on the child to inform future

decision-making.

8.2 Developing the whole system

The Debate focussed more on the overall system than on exemptions, and on

gaps, anomalies and development priorities. In identifying priorities, the following

issues were consistently raised:

(a) Implementing Government Policy commitments, in relation to

children, education, disability, health and related matters, that will build the

comprehensive system of supports for children and families

(b) The Pre-school and Primary school systems and related support

structures and programmes

(c) Transitions and transition planning from pre- to primary school

(d) Communication

In addition to the principle of a child-centred approach in everything, two issues

are repeated across all of the discussions:

Flexibility as a necessary component of all systems if responding to a

child’s needs and readiness, both socially and academically

Early intervention as critical, and ensuring the necessary resources,

teams, specialists, information and access are in place across the various

systems a vital step in delivering the appropriate supports and services to

the child, supporting parents and families to make fully informed decisions



8.2.1Implementing Government Policy commitments

Participants noted that many Government policy commitments presented a

positive approach to tackling the systemic issues affecting children with

special/additional needs. However, the inconsistent and/or slow rate of

implementation by different Departments and/or Agencies, results in experiences

where children with additional/special needs do not receive the holistic, joined up

and consistent support and services intended.

For example, the absence of full implementation of the national policy on

Progressing Disability Services for Children and Young People, creates gaps or

limits in service provision. Inconsistencies along these lines results in a

fragmented service map. Parents at the Open Policy Debate also reported that

fragmented service provision can lead to parents’ choice of education setting for

their child being restricted.

8.2.2 The Pre-school and Primary school systems

The parent of a child with additional/special needs is navigating a system which is

under construction. While the Primary School system is well embedded, in

practice the relatively fast shift to a system in which there is state funded early

years programmes in the lead up to starting primary school inevitably shifts the

equilibrium. The emphasis on children attending mainstream, rather than, special

schools has also changed the environment.

While everyone is aware that the Early Years sector is still ‘forming’ and there is

inevitable change and development, these developments and others are also

changing things in the Primary School.

Suggestions made that would improve the overall system and enhance skills

included:

Close collaboration and a joint approach to planning is required across all

aspects of the pre- and primary school from the work of the Department of

Children and Youth Affairs and Department of Education and Skills right

through to the individual pre- and primary schools on the ground

Mapping and streamlining all the available programmes, schemes and supports

so the parent can easily see and understand what is available (and in doing this

iron out any confusion or anomalies)

Ensuring that there is a common set of supports available countrywide

More joint training of the workforce across the settings to enhance skills and

increase understanding between what should be partner services



A greater emphasis on teacher training on working with children with

disabilities

In-service training provision for pre-school staff

A better alignment of the AIM and Special Need Assistant’s (SNA) support

Speech and Language, and Occupational Therapy services capable of the

earliest intervention

Effective mechanisms for raising awareness among parents so that they can

access professionals and services easily and quickly

Other issues raised during the discussions included:

Age limits

It was noted, generally, that exemptions arise because of age limits and there

were questions as to the necessity for so many exemptions. The ‘to primary

school by age 6’, was broadly accepted (although, it was pointed out that in other

European countries start dates are later), but all age limits received some

criticism and questions such as:

Why not have the ECCE provision up to age 6 so there would not be a

gap where a parent decides to send their child to school at 6?

Why not have the primary school start requirement as ‘during the year

that a child is 6’?

Why is it a requirement that children are in Senior Infants by 6.5 years –

this is anomaly if children are permitted to start at age 6?

Why are there school specific starting ages in some enrolment policies,

which can have the effect of leaving a child without a place?

Why do early intervention teams only support children up to age 5?

Why have the lower ECCE start date? Is it too young and is it creating a

gap on completion and before school start date?

Why are some children too young for AIM supports and why is there a

limit of 3 hours where a child might need more time?

The ECCE Programme starting age, at 2 years and 8 months, was noted as,

possibly, pushing some children into primary school two years later, when they

may be still two young, or for others leaving a gap between ECCE and primary

school which parents may not be able to afford to fill with private pre-school.

Generally, the date of birth criteria was not seen as a fitting way to determine

what was right for any child, and that all children have diverse needs and develop

all their abilities differently.



Anomalies

The Open Policy Debate identified inconsistencies/anomalies in the system, such

as:

Children getting exemptions but not AIM

Different specialists recommending different things

Diagnosis not required for AIM but required for other services/resources in

Primary School

Diagnosis required but long waiting times for assessments

Different assessments required, instead of a single assessment to inform all

decisions

A further set of anomalies, cited by the participants, related to the non-alignment

of different programmes and age/deadline requirements – for example:

The requirement that children transfer out of senior infants at 6 years and 6

months

The lack of alignment between the home tuition, Autism (ASD) provision and

pre-school provision

The Department of Education and Skills Early Start Programme11 as a

one-year programme rather than two

The need for greater alignment within the HSE and HSE funded services

nationwide

Generally, better collaboration and engagement between the different parts of

the system – Government Departments and Agencies - would help to reduce

such anomalies and suggestions included:

Development of protocols to support engagement across all programmes and

systems (for example, Aistear, AIM, Better Start, etc)

Systems auditing to identify inconsistencies and unintended consequences in

implementation, or contradictions in practice

Assessments

In many cases, children’s special/additional needs are not diagnosed until early

childhood, and delays in assessment can mean that early interventions are also

delayed. Cost can be another factor in delayed assessment. Further, the need for

multiple assessments and the lack of sharing of assessments creates silos of

11 The Early Start Programme is a pre-school project established in 1994 in 40 primary schools in

designated areas of urban disadvantage



information. Some participants reported vagueness or inadequate definition in

assessments, which resulted in difficulties in determining which services and when

they could be provided.

Improving access, streamlining and standardising the assessment systems, and

ensuring the information can be shared between parents, professionals and

practitioners, would support speedier and comprehensive supports and planning,

aimed at meeting the needs of the child.

Whatever the route to the assessment of the child, the child’s profile must be

accurate, and the importance of the process of reaching sign-off with parents, and

the supports needed to do this, should not be underestimated. The idea of a

‘passport’ suggested by some participants may offer a universal approach to a

single and central record which is owned by the child/parents but accessible to

providers, teachers and others directly involved, including those making

assessments.

Access and Inclusion Model (AIM)

Participants spoke of the value of the AIM working directly in pre-school

settings, enabling providers to engage with parents, with accessibility not

dependent on a diagnosis. The AIM assessment timeline would benefit from a

clearer more defined process with a timeline for application to assessment, and

adequate time to plan for additional/special staff in services.

It was suggested that AIM could provide supports within a transition plan where

an overlap of the team supporting the child in pre-school could lead into primary.

Such supports, continuing into Primary School, can reduce the incongruity of the

child’s experience in moving from one setting to another, and there was

reference to the importance of AIM in DEIS denominated schools.

There were practical examples of how this streamlined support is being delivered

in some services, such as, accompanying a child into the primary setting for a

period of overlap to ease the change.

However, such ideas depend on the resources being available and the quality of

the engagement between the pre-school/practitioner and the school/teacher.

Leadership for INClusion (LINC)

LINC in the Early Years national programme was launched in 2016 and designed

to enhance inclusion of children with additional needs in the ECCE settings.

While not long in place, LINC was considered a valuable addition in increasing

confidence and skill in practitioners working in inclusive setting with children with

special/additional needs, and ensuring its national reach is important.



Aistear in Primary School

Aistear, the Early Childhood Curricular Framework, was acknowledged as a

programme enabling work with children across ages, and one which must be

embedded in the Primary School. For this, teacher training must include Aistear

not as an option but as core to the curriculum.

Capacity issues

It was noted that there are capacity issues in the pre-school setting and that

there is a pressure on staffing as the opportunities, and better terms and

conditions in other areas, attract Early Years staff. These unintended

consequences of developments in one area must be monitored, and in planning a

service development, anticipated.

Varying start dates for children was also identified as impacting on capacity, both

in the pre- and primary school.

Some concerns were raised that not all providers may be willing to take children

with special/additional needs in pre-schools, generally or without the supports

being in place first. While this was largely anecdotal, and explained variously as

related to lack of confidence, skills or capacity, it led to discussion as to whether

this should be allowed within a State funded programme committed to inclusion.

Completing the roll out of training and effective support measures were

confirmed as the priority, with the LINC programme offering further support in

confidence building.

Change planning

There was an acceptance that policy, systems and practice will continue to

change, but such change must be well considered, evidence based, coordinated

with all other agencies and systems, and focussed on constant quality

improvements. To that end participants suggested that research on the impact of

schemes (or in this case exemptions) must inform decisions on change, which

should then be rolled out carefully.

8.2.3Transitions

There was general agreement that as the child moves from pre- to primary

school a plan is necessary that involves parents, pre-school practitioners and the

primary school, as well as the related services that support and provide services

to the child and their family.

For the child, the process should be seamless, with the supportive and

developmental experience of early years learning settings continuing into Primary

School. To achieve this, both the school and the child must be ‘ready’, whereas

there has tended to be a focus mainly on child readiness. In the discussions, it



was apparent that one of the anxieties that parents of children with

additional/special needs have is that it is the school that may not be ready for

their child, and that progress made in the ECCE setting will be lost. Proper

transition planning is key to showing parents that the supports and systems are in

place before the child reaches primary school, and a transition plan can deliver a

continuity of care with the same team involved for a period, which will add to a

more seamless experience for the child.

To ensure that this planning happens, proper protocols and policies were viewed

as vital to support even-handed and child centred systems and approaches, with

some participants suggesting that the transition planning process should be

mandatory. Such planning also implies that the various parties involved are

adequately informed and resourced to engage fully and an example of under

resourcing given was that of the early intervention team for the children’s

disability network. However, some of the suggestions were simple, such as visits

by pre-school practitioners to primary schools and vice versa.

A further issue raised related to data protection/barriers to information sharing.

This should be reviewed to deliver systematic and appropriate data sharing aimed

at enhancing the transition experience of the child.

For an effective transition, the participants at the Debate considered that the plan

should be settled where at all possible, in year 2 of the ECCE period, so that the

necessary overlapping period can begin, and the school is ready to welcome and

support each child.

8.2.4Communication

Throughout the Debate there were extensive concerns about poor or

inadequate communication across the system and services. It is unclear who is

responsible for setting out and coordinating the communication requirements

across the system, but from the perspective of parents in particular this is a

priority.

A strong suggestion emerged that there should be a communication strategy

which maps out the content, lines of communication, standards, where

responsibility lies and the means that will empower parents and facilitate

effectiveness among all those involved in the planning and delivery of the supports

and services. A ‘whole of early years’ communications approach, which once

again places the child and their parent at the centre, and responds to their need

for information and navigation.

During the Debate. Suggestions about improved communications placed an

emphasis on:



Much better and easily accessible information available to all parents and,

particularly, to parents with children with special/additional needs. This would

help them to know and understand what is available and its relevance to their

child, across the entire early years cycle and into the primary setting, enabling

them to think ahead and plan from an informed position for their child

Streamlining the communication between practitioners and other

professionals involved in supporting and providing services to children and

families, to facilitate interventions and support at the earliest opportunity, and

to continue supports in a seamless way

Establishing universal and effective communication protocols for pre- and

primary schools, which support the transition planning for each

Effective communications - ensure parents have clear, understandable

information and explanations, most particularly in matters concerning their

own child, enabling them to sign off on their child’s profile and make informed

choices at each stage of their child’s life.



9. Appendices

Appendix 1 - Acknowledgements

Open Policy Debate Report prepared by Caroline McCamley, and|Ampersand.

Appendix 2 – What the international evidence tells us about

school exemptions / deferments from other jurisdictions?

There are varieties of practices around the process of applying for, and the

granting of, school exemptions. Different jurisdictions have different legal

frameworks governing deferred school entry, different infrastructure and systems

for managing applications, and different provisions for children with disabilities or

special education needs seeking these deferments. The provisions for deferral are

more explicit in some jurisdictions than in others.

This section provides a comparative review of the processes England, Scotland,

Northern Ireland, New Zealand and the United States.

Jurisdictions with defined systems for deferring

England

Compulsory school age

Compulsory school age is set out in section 8 of the Education Act 1996 and

the Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998. A child

reaches compulsory school age on the prescribed day following his or her fifth

birthday (or on his or her fifth birthday if it falls on a prescribed day). The

prescribed days are 31st of December, 31st of March and 31st of August (p. 24)12.

The compulsory school age applies to all children.

12

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389388/School_A

dmission_Code_2014_-_19_Dec.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389388/School_Admissions_Code_2014_-_19_Dec.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389388/School_Admissions_Code_2014_-_19_Dec.pdf



The child ceases to be of compulsory on the last Friday in June in the school year

they turn sixteen and this is the case regardless of whether or not the child has

been educated with their normal age cohort. For children who defer, this may

result in them reaching the upper compulsory age prior to taking GCSEs and in

this case, the child cannot be obliged to attend. In 2015, a change to the law

affected the age at which children finish education – though the child can still

leave school at 16, they are obliged to continue education in some form until

they are 18, for example, by attending college, undertaking an apprenticeship, or

a combination of part-time work and study.

Legal frameworks and policy

The School Admission Code 2014 gives statutory guidance on the admission

process for maintained schools (schools maintained by local authorities, for

example, academies, free schools), which are managed by admission authorities.

The School Admission Code 2014 provides the legal framework for

admission authorities to discharge their functions regarding the admission of

children to schools under their remit (Table 29). Two articles in particular make

reference to deferred school entry – Articles 2.16 and 2.17.

Article 2.16 details the statutory obligation of admission authorities to provide

for the admission of children in the September after their fourth birthday, and

where a child is offered a place at school, it must be made clear:

1. That the child is entitled to a full-time place in the September following their

fourth birthday.

2. The child’s parents can choose to defer the date their child is admitted to

school until later in the school year but not beyond the compulsory school

age, and not beyond the beginning of the final term of the school year for

which the request to defer was made.

3. Where the parents wish, children may attend part-time until later in the

school year but not beyond the point at which they reach compulsory school

age.

Article 2.17 of the School Admission Code 2014 details provision for the

admission of children outside their normal age group, for instance in the case that

the child has experienced health problems, where the child is gifted, or in the

case of summer-born children.



The Department of Education published a non-statutory advisory document13

accompanying the School Admission Code 2014 aimed at local authorities,

schools admission authorities and parents who may be considering deferring their

child’s entry to school. Though the advice specifies deferment in relation to

summer-born children, it is useful in outlining deferments in general. It includes

details on making decisions in the child’s best interest, submission of supporting

evidence, and frequently asked questions in relation to deferral (among other

things).

Admission authorities are obligated to uphold the School Admission Code

2014 and apply it in a practical way within their district. They compile admission

arrangements for all schools in their area and these are presented in a single

document. Deferred school entry is a key component of these admission

authority policies. Generally, the policies detail what children are eligible to defer

and the processes for requesting deferment in these cases14.

Table 29 Admission Authorities and categories of school15

Type of School The admission authority

A community school

A voluntary controlled school

The local authority

A foundation school

A voluntary aided school

The governing body

13

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389448/Summer_

born_admissions_advice_Dec_2014.pdf

14 For example, City of York (2015) Admissions Policy on Delayed and Deferred Admission to

Primary School

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjp1rOlru7

ZAhVMDMAKHXLTC14QFgguMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.york.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2F

downloads%2Fid%2F9565%2Fdelayed_and_deferred_admission_to_reception.pdf&usg=AOvVaw

0FOXxqjxYmjfktpFyVXOW_

15

https://councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/School%20Admissions

%20Briefing_0.pdf (p.7)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389448/Summer_born_admissions_advice_Dec_2014.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389448/Summer_born_admissions_advice_Dec_2014.pdf

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjp1rOlru7ZAhVMDMAKHXLTC14QFgguMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.york.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F9565%2Fdelayed_and_deferred_admission_to_reception.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0FOXxqjxYmjfktpFyVXOW_




https://councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/School%20Admissions%20Briefing_0.pdf

https://councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/School%20Admissions%20Briefing_0.pdf



An Academy or a Free School The Academy Trust

The way deferments are managed may vary from authority to authority, though

most appear to follow a similar system, taking into account the three main

categories of children that may want to enter school into a group with a different

chronological age: summer-born children, children who are perceived as gifted

(and thus want to jump to a higher age group), and children whose

parents/caregivers have concerns about their health.

Admission authorities must make deferment decisions based on the best interests

of the child concerned and do so on a case-by-case basis – indeed this applies to

each application to defer, regardless of reasons or motivations.

Among other things, the admissions authority takes into consideration:

1. The parent’s views.

2. Information about the child’s academic, social and emotional development.

3. Their medical history and the views of a medical professional (if relevant).

4. Whether they have previously been educated out of their normal age

group, and whether they may naturally have fallen into a lower age group if

it were not for being born prematurely.

5. The views of the head teacher of the school concerned.

Reasons for decisions taken on requests to delay school entry should be fully

outlined to parents and parents have a statutory right to appeal a refusal of a

school place for which they have applied. However, if the child is offered a place

at school but it is not within the preferred age group, this right does not apply.

As individual admission authorities manage the deferment process, overall data

for England on the number of children seeking or availing of delayed school entry

is unavailable.

The following sections will review the processes around different categories of

deferrals. For the purpose of this review procedures around a child jumping

forward in age have not been considered in-depth.

Funding for early years / pre-schooling

All children in England are entitled to funding of early education or childcare

amounting to fifteen hours over thirty-eight weeks. This funding is available for

the term after the child’s third birthday. This can be extended to thirty hours

where the child lives with the parents, the parents are in employment and are



not earning over Stg.100,000 per annum. Some two year olds, particularly from

disadvantaged areas, may be eligible for an additional fifteen hours of childcare

(early year’s pupil premium).

The fifteen hours early education can be adjusted at the parent’s discretion, for

example, to take course over a longer period of time with less hours each

week.16

Where the parents choose to defer their child’s entry to school, the child

remains entitled to a funded early education place until they are admitted to

school. However, the government do not provide additional funding for the extra

year in pre-school, (that is, above and beyond the fifteen hours, thirty hours,

and/or funding from two years old if eligible). The usual funding is available until

the child begins primary school, even if the start is delayed.

Reasons for deferring

Summer-born children

Summer-born children are defined as those born between the 1stof April and the

31stof August and they are not required to enter Reception (year one of primary

school) until a full year after the point at which they could have been first

admitted. The child cannot be deferred past the compulsory school starting age.

If a parent feels that their child is not ready to start school, they can request a

delayed start from the admission authority. The authority makes a decision on a

case-by-case basis (that is. it is not an automatic deferral) though the Department

for Education note that summer-born requests differ from any other parental

requests and are being made purely on the basis of the time of birth.17 In the case

of children born prematurely, their due date may be taken into account, in terms

of the age group a child would have fallen into if born on time.

Children with special education needs

In the case of a child with (perceived) special need or a child with disabilities,

there are two sub-categories which warrant attention - children with and without

an Education, Health and Care plan.

Children without an Education, Health and Care Plan

16 https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/free-childcare-and-education-for-2-to-4-year-

olds

17

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389448/Summer_

born_admissions_advice_Dec_2014.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/free-childcare-and-education-for-2-to-4-year-olds

https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/free-childcare-and-education-for-2-to-4-year-olds



Parents requesting delayed school entry to Reception will follow the channels

outlined in the admissions policy, usually the same channels as summer-born child

requests though they may provide supporting evidence for their application if

they wish.

Decisions are made in accordance with the best interests of the child and the

types of considerations outlined above.

Children with an Education, Health and Care Plan

Parents of children or schools/colleges who believe a child may require more

support than is usually available in a mainstream setting can make a request to the

local authority for the child to have an Education, Health and Care (needs

assessment. This will generally have followed considerable planning and

consultation between the parents and early years provider regarding the child’s

needs and/or school transition.

The local authority must undertake an assessment if they believe special

education provisions may be necessary in accordance with an Education,

Health and Care Plan.18 In particular, they will consider the progress made by

the child following the initial education planning and provisions that have already

taken place in the early years setting. They will look for:

Evidence of developmental milestones (with younger children)

Further information on the context, nature and extent of the child’s special

education needs

Whether the progress made by the child has only been achieved after high

levels of intervention and support (that is, above and beyond what would

normally be available)

Evidence from clinicians and other health professionals regarding the child’s

physical, social and emotional development and needs, and/or

Whether the child’s needs will increase with age (for instance, in the case of

acquired needs through illness or accident)

Following the assessment, a child may be given an Education Health and Care

Plan though the local authority can likewise decide not to issue an

Education Health and Care Plan (see Figure2). The plan is a legal

document outlining the education, health and care needs of the child and

focusses on outcomes that reflect a child’s aspirations and future goals.

18

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Co

de_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf



Figure 2 Statutory timescales for Education Health and Care Plan

needs assessment and Education Health and Care Plan development19

19


de_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (p.153)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf




The admission authority is responsible for arranging school admission for

children with an Education Health and Care Plan, whether they are to be

schooled in the mainstream or specialist environment. However, children with an

Education Health and Care Plan are subject to different admission processes

and many general admission policies advise parents to liaise directly with the

Special Education Needs (SEN) teams in the authority regarding school places,

that is, as opposed to providing policies outlining the procedures for admission.

One example of a specific policy is the Surrey Admission Authority guidance

document Admission to school for children with an Education Health

and Care Plan or a Statement of Special Educational Needs20.

The Education Health and Care Plan requires a parent to note their school

preference for the child, as provided for in Sections 33 and 39 of the Children

and Families Act 2014. This includes any maintained school (mainstream or

specialised) as well as non-maintained special school. The local authority must

comply with the parents’ school request unless the setting would be unsuitable

for the age, ability, aptitude or needs of the child, or if the child’s attendance in

that setting would be incompatible with the efficient education of others, or the

efficient use of resources21.

To establish the appropriateness of proceeding with the parent’s preference, the

local authority will consult school authorities (for example, governing body,

principal) and will also seek agreement relating to any provisions which may be

delivered on site and secured through direct payments. Should a decision be

made that the preferred setting is not appropriate, the local authority must also

ascertain if reasonable steps could be taken to remove the incompatibility.

It would appear that the time taken for Education Health and Care

assessment and planning may, in some areas, delay the point of school entry past

the compulsory school age and in such a case, the right of the child to begin

school at the usual age is restated (that is, the onus appears to be with the local

20 https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/100111/15122016-SEND-admissions-

guidance-2017_v1.1.pdf

21 Efficiency refers to the ability to provide suitable and appropriate education to children on the

basis of age, ability, aptitude and SEN. ‘Others’ refers to children also present in the setting who

will have day-to-day contact with the child with the EHC


de_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (Article 9.79)





authority to ensure a smooth process of admission within the compulsory school

timeframe).22

Scotland


The compulsory school age is outlined in Section 31 of the Education

(Scotland) Act 1980. Children must begin school by five and are not required

to remain past the age of 16. Children who have turned five before the start of

the school year in mid-August are generally expected to enter P1 (first year of

primary school) however, parents have a choice to send or retain their child if

they are below five at the start of term. Parents can request a school place for

children below the school age and decisions are made by the education

authorities (Councils) on a case-by-case basis.

The vast majority (91%) of children starting primary school are aged between 4.5-

5.5 years old on entry23


The Education (Scotland) Act 1980, Part 1, Section 1 requires education

authorities to “secure that there is made for their area adequate and efficient

provision of school education and further education”.24 In practical terms, local

Councils manage the educational infrastructure, similar to how admissions

authorities might manage admission to schools under their remit.

Along with the 1980 Act, the Education (School and Placing Information)

(Scotland) Regulations 201225 specifies that education authorities must make

basic information available to parents on the placing arrangements for each

22 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Children’s Services (2016) Guidance on ensuring

children with an EHC Plan or SEN Statement receive suitable education

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ah

UKEwj27PrsxevZAhVTFMAKHfqQAtkQFghLMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsite.bardag-

lscb.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F12%2FEnsuring-Children-with-EHC-Plans-or-

SEN-Statements-receive-suitable-education.docx&usg=AOvVaw2hJaJl8yCDyt0wf7eMTDL8

23 http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/05/7940/4

24 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/44/section/1

25 These Acts are also influenced by, and influence in turn, the Education (Additional Support for

Learning)

(Scotland) Act 2004 which will be discussed more below.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj27PrsxevZAhVTFMAKHfqQAtkQFghLMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsite.bardag-lscb.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F12%2FEnsuring-Children-with-EHC-Plans-or-SEN-Statements-receive-suitable-education.docx&usg=AOvVaw2hJaJl8yCDyt0wf7eMTDL8




http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/05/7940/4

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/44/section/1



school in its catchment area. Of particular note, this basic information should

include:

The commencement arrangements for these schools

Information on transitions (for example, from early years setting to primary

school)

The general policy or practice in relation to provision in primary or secondary

schools for pupils with additional support needs

Information on special schools (these may not be under the management of

the authority, though should a placement at one of these schools be

requested and be appropriate, the authority has a duty to facilitate the

placement)

The Councils publish information for parents annually outlining school

arrangements in their area. Decisions on discretionary deferral requests are

made on a case-by-case basis, generally taking into account the child’s emotional,

social and educational development (for example, the child’s approach to learning

and ability to communicate needs).26 Councils note that in exceptional cases, a

deferral may be an appropriate intervention for a child with significant support

needs. There is also a provision for automatic deferral (discussed below in

Reasons for Deferring – Month of Birth).

Deferral requests can generally be made in respect of a child who is five after the

start of the school year.27 These requests are made by parents to the local

council. As per the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 a child cannot be granted

a deferment automatically where they would turn six in the additional year.

Different councils appear to have slightly different processes for handling

deferrals. For example, the Highland Council insist on the input of an Educational

Psychologist to advise on the appropriateness of any deferment which would

result in the child being aged six on entry to primary school. Likewise, Midlothian

Council make special reference in their deferral policy to primary school children

who would turn six during this retained year in nursery, noting that a decision to

26 Midlothian Council and The Highland Council

27

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjPn6vM2-

vZAhVHLsAKHfW6B4gQFgg0MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midlothian.gov.uk%2Fdownload

%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F2451%2Fadmissions_to_primary_and_secondary_schools.pdf&usg=AO

vVaw113-eCQndVLi5bfdC8Sz9p

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjPn6vM2-vZAhVHLsAKHfW6B4gQFgg0MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midlothian.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F2451%2Fadmissions_to_primary_and_secondary_schools.pdf&usg=AOvVaw113-eCQndVLi5bfdC8Sz9p






defer the child would only be made in “exceptional circumstances”.28 Both

examples would appear to suggest some flexibility in practice around the

deferment of children turning six in the additional year, even above the legality of

children starting primary school beyond the compulsory age.

The Midlothian Council notes the importance of the “core team around the

child” agreeing along with the parents that the application to defer is in the child’s

best interest. This team also complete a support plan for the additional year in

Early Learning and Childcare to accompany the deferral application.

Reasons for deferring

Month of birth

Similar to England, the month of the child’s birth is influential in the deferral

process. Children in Scotland born with birthdays in January and February may

defer their child’s primary school entry and are entitled to an additional year in

the early years setting. This deferral can be granted automatically (though

through the usual application channels) for children born in these months.

However, those whose birthdays fall in the September to December period are

not entitled to the extra year in the early years setting. Nor is this deferral

automatic.

The Growing Up in Scotland Early Experiences of Primary School

longitudinal study tracked up to 14,000 children across their early years,

childhood and beyond. The study looked at instances of deferral, reporting that

13% of children defer entry to primary school among three cohorts of children

born at different times. Among the child cohort (3,000 children born between

June 2002 and May 2003), the proportion of automatic and discretionary

deferrals was 69% and 31%, respectively.

Analysis was undertaken within the sub-sample of children in the birth cohort

(two sets of children: 5,000 born between June 2004 and May 2005; and, 6,000

born between March 2010 and February 2011). It was noted that there were no

differences in the overall likelihood of deferred entry by a family’s socio-

economic status. However, where a child's entry to school had been deferred,

28

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ah

UKEwjh0NeB4v3ZAhWDKcAKHeP6C44QFgguMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midlothian.go

v.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F950%2Fadmissions_to_early_learning_and_childcare.

pdf&usg=AOvVaw0lKJQFNlGhjrI4R60JehTt

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjh0NeB4v3ZAhWDKcAKHeP6C44QFgguMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midlothian.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F950%2Fadmissions_to_early_learning_and_childcare.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0lKJQFNlGhjrI4R60JehTt






that entry was significantly more likely to have been discretionary than automatic

amongst children in more disadvantaged circumstances.29

The study also looked at the reasons for deferring among the child cohort and

noted that parents of lower-income groups were more often advised to defer

(Table 30).

Table 30Reasons given for deferring child's school entry by deferral

type and household income - Child cohort30

Reason Deferral type Equivalised income group

Automatic

(%)

Discretionary

(%)

In bottom 3

quintiles

(%)

In top 2

quintiles

(%)

Not ready 50 29 39 48

Not old enough 35 25 31 37

Chose not to send 5 7 4 10

Advised to defer 5 5 8 1

Health or

developmental issues

4 19 12 3

Something else 1 14 7 1

Bases

Weighted 135 55 107 66

Unweighted 147 56 106 78

Children with special education needs

The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 200431

makes “provision for additional support in connection with the school education

of children and young persons having additional support needs; and for connected

purposes”.32



31 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/4/pdfs/asp_20040004_en.pdf

32 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/4/pdfs/asp_20040004_en.pdf (p.1)



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/4/pdfs/asp_20040004_en.pdf

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/4/pdfs/asp_20040004_en.pdf



For the purposes of the Act, ‘additional support needs’ relate to a child who

would have difficulty benefitting from (or being provided with) school education

without additional support. Additional support might describe educational

provision that is additional or different to that which is generally provided to

children, or that might be generally provided to children of the same age in

schools which are managed by the education authority.

The Act refers to Co-ordinated Support Plans – a plan that is required for the

provision of additional support. It includes what the child’s needs are, some

background on the factor(s) leading to these needs, the educational objectives for

the child, and who will provide the additional support. The education authorities

must devise a plan where:

An education authority is responsible for the school education of the child

The child has additional support needs arising from one or more complex

factors (for example, factors that would have a significant adverse effect on

schooling), or multiple factors (factors which alone may not be complex but

taken together have an adverse effect on schooling)

The child’s needs are likely to continue for longer than a year; and

The needs will require significant additional support to be provided, whether

by the education authority themselves or other appropriate agencies

Section 6 of the Act makes a distinction between children who have additional

needs, and children who have additional needs and require a co-ordinated

support plan. Schedule 2 of the Act provides for school placements though no

reference is made to deferrals.

Reviewing the Councils’ information on school entry and deferral, it does not

appear to be the case that children with a co-ordinated care plan are treated

appreciably differently to other children (for example, as is the case in England

where children with an Education Health and Care Plan are subject to

different admissions procedures). The Councils have specific guidance relating to

their obligations to children with co-ordinated care plans33 though it does not

appear to affect the deferral application process (or decisions) for parents.

The Highland Council note that when a deferral is agreed by parents and the

child’s core team as an appropriate intervention, it should be noted on the child’s

plan. Clear targets should also be put into the plan and worked on during the

additional year.

33 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/4/pdfs/asp_20040004_en.pdf



North Lanarkshire Council invite parents and child to attend a meeting at the

child’s nursery when they have put in a request to defer on the basis of additional

needs. The meeting is also attended by a specialist in early education with the

purpose of determining whether or not the child “has reached a level of

development which will allow him/her to settle happily into a primary one

class”.34 Deferral applications for children with co-ordinated care plans are

applied for using the same form and parents are advised to supply a copy of the

plan as supporting documentation. However, it is unlikely that a child with a plan

will be subject to further assessment in relation to the application.

Jurisdictions without defined systems for deferring

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland has the lowest compulsory school age of all European

countries, having been reduced from five to four in 1989.3536 Where a child’s

birthday falls during the summer months (2nd of July – 31st of August), the child

must begin school by the September following their fifth birthday.

There is no current system for deferring school entry, nor can a child remain in

the pre-school setting for an extra year.37 At present, where parents have any

concerns about their child being ready for school or having any additional needs

for transitioning to primary school, they are advised to contact the school

principal in the primary school they wish their child to attend.

Though there had been consultations around the deferral processes for children

entering primary school in 2015, legal changes were put on hold. The results of

the consultation process are available and respondents overwhelmingly

supported making deferral (and implicitly, a system for same) available.38

34 http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3261&p=0

35 https://www.nfer.ac.uk/eurydice/compulsory-age-of-starting-school

36 Article 46 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986

37 https://www.education-

ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/Starting%20School%20Age%20-

%20A%20Guide%20for%20Parents.pdf

38 https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/summary-of-consultation-

on-proposals-to-introduce-deferral-of-compulsory-school-starting-age-in-exceptional-

circumstances.pdf

http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3261&p=0

https://www.nfer.ac.uk/eurydice/compulsory-age-of-starting-school

https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/Starting%20School%20Age%20-%20A%20Guide%20for%20Parents.pdf



https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/summary-of-consultation-on-proposals-to-introduce-deferral-of-compulsory-school-starting-age-in-exceptional-circumstances.pdf





New Zealand

All children must be enrolled in primary school before the age of six however

recent updates to the legislation (The Education (Update) Amendment Act

2017) have expanded on compulsory school age.39

The introduction of ‘cohort entry’ from 2018 allows groups of children to enter

primary school at the beginning of a term closest to their fifth birthday (rather

than on their fifth birthday, and as opposed to the beginning of the year). For

example, a child might start in the autumn or winter term.

There is no system to defer school entry. Early Childhood Education settings

“must have an environment that is inclusive and responsive to all children” and

cannot exclude a child. This is a condition of their operating license.40 Parents

with concerns about their child are encouraged to make contact with the early

intervention service, which provides state-funded support. Alternatively, the Early

Childhood Education settings may make this contact. In the case of a child with a

high degree of needs, Early Childhood Education settings may take place within a

special school setting.

Jurisdictions with varied systems for deferral

United States of America

There is considerable variation in the USA with respect to early years schooling.

There are considerable differences between states’ compulsory school ages,

policies around exemptions, how school readiness is judged and availability of

pre-K (pre-Kindergarten, or pre-school). Given this diversity, it is not possible to

review in depth arrangements in each state, however, the following sections will

outline general policy at the federal level and focus on several state-based

examples of the infrastructure and arrangements in more depth.


Compulsory school entry age in the USA ranges from 5 years to 8 years old (See

Figure 3) and many individual states have different systems for opting in to school

early, or delaying entry. Babel notes that given the possibilities of early entry in

some states, and late entry in others, “it is possible for a three-year old child in

Connecticut and an eight-year old child in either Pennsylvania or Washington to

39 https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/legislation/the-education-update-

amendment-act/

40 https://parents.education.govt.nz/learning-support/early-learning-support/choosing-an-early-

childhood-education-service-that-offers-support-for-special-education-needs/

https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/legislation/the-education-update-amendment-act/

https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/legislation/the-education-update-amendment-act/

https://parents.education.govt.nz/learning-support/early-learning-support/choosing-an-early-childhood-education-service-that-offers-support-for-special-education-needs/

https://parents.education.govt.nz/learning-support/early-learning-support/choosing-an-early-childhood-education-service-that-offers-support-for-special-education-needs/



be in Kindergarten at the same time” despite “monumental” differences in these

children’s developmental stage (2017, p.30).41

Along with significant age differences, the school entry point also varies widely.

For instance, the Education Commission for States reported in February 2018

that only three states (Washington, Vermont and Florida – along with

Washington D.C.) provide universal pre-K, with another seven providing mostly-

universal pre-K, meaning that almost all districts in these states make provision

for this. Universal pre-K is “not capped by funding amounts, enrolment numbers

or enrolment deadlines”.42

A further 35 states provide non-universal, but state-funded pre-K places while

five states provide no state funded pre-K at all (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North

Dakota and South Dakota).43

At the next level up, Kindergarten is not compulsory in 33 states and as a result

children can enter school into the first grade (Grade 1)44

Again, the sheer diversity is difficult to contend with. Where pre-K is unavailable,

Kindergarten could plausibly be viewed as the pre-school setting. In areas with

pre-K, Kindergarten might be assumed to be the first year of primary school. In

still more states, where a child has not had access, or been required, to attend

pre-K or Kindergarten, the first year of any schooling might be Grade 1. In

addition, the curriculum in many kindergartens is less play-based and more

academically focussed to prepare the child for their academic career. This has led

to kindergarten being known to many as “the next first grade”.45

41

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c8d9/8886a1c4b5f1fee431290302f2c85dd10900.pdf?_ga=2.1966

8472.1333798579.1521719892-1330621690.1521719892

42 https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/How-States-Fund-Pre-K_A-Primer-for-

Policymakers.pdf (p.5)

43 https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/How-States-Fund-Pre-K_A-Primer-for-

Policymakers.pdf

44 There are further two states where Kindergarten is not compulsory but comes with caveats:

in New Jersey Abbotts Districts require children to attend full-day Kindergarten; and, in North

Carolina an “exceptionally mature child” can enter school in Grade 1 at the discretion of the

principal (http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquest6RTN?Rep=KPSN14)

45


8472.1333798579.1521719892-1330621690.1521719892 data derived from the Education

Commission of the States https://www.ecs.org/kindergarten-policies/ (p.33)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c8d9/8886a1c4b5f1fee431290302f2c85dd10900.pdf?_ga=2.19668472.1333798579.1521719892-1330621690.1521719892


https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/How-States-Fund-Pre-K_A-Primer-for-Policymakers.pdf

https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/How-States-Fund-Pre-K_A-Primer-for-Policymakers.pdf

http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquest6RTN?Rep=KPSN14

https://www.ecs.org/kindergarten-policies/



Figure 3 Compulsory School Age 201446


A number of education policies introduced at the federal level have impacted on

the mechanisms and culture of early childhood education. In 1993, George H.

Bush (Snr.) Introduced the National Education Goals Panel, which had the target

of all American children starting school ready to learn by the year 2000. One of

the knock-on effects of this policy was the establishment of a set of cognitive,

social, emotional and physical developmental standards for kindergarten-aged

children.

46 Babel (2017, p. 26)


8472.1333798579.1521719892-1330621690.1521719892 data derived from the Education

Commission of the States https://www.ecs.org/kindergarten-policies/

5 years old – 8 states + Washington D.C.

6 years old – 26 states

7 years old – 14 states

8 years old – Pennsylvania and Washington



https://www.ecs.org/kindergarten-policies/



The goals of the panel were not achieved by 2000 and George W. Bush (Jnr.)

introduced the No Child Left Behind Act. This supported standards-based

testing and made schools accountable for their performance - high-performing

schools would be rewarded, often financially, while low-performing schools

would be held accountable for their poor performance, often resulting in a

decrease or withdrawal of funding.

Barack Obama introduced the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, which

placed the power back into the state government’s hands with respect to

standards and accountability, including student testing. 47

The policy landscape has influenced in particular the notion of school ‘readiness’

as well as increasing the standards expected of kindergarten aged children (and

subsequently, pre-school aged children). There have been concerted efforts in

many states to improve and expand access and funding for pre-school (pre-K)

and transitional programmes, for instance, the State-wide Voluntary Pre-school

Programme in Iowa.

Simultaneously, curricula have moved away from traditional play-based activities

and towards more academic pursuits, including a focus on literacy at

Kindergarten level. The Education Commission for the States notes that 33 states

along with Washington D.C. have implemented Kindergarten readiness

assessments.

These tests purport to identify students who may require additional education

needs, inform teachers’ development of appropriate supports for each learner,

and determine how pre-K initiatives are performing at readying the child for

learning48. Babel (2017) notes that these assessments can also be used to deny

children entry to Kindergarten and justify the de-funding of pre-school

programmes.

What is unusual about the USA is that the concept of a child being ‘ready’ to

begin primary school is a fixed and quantifiable standard and this differs with

other jurisdictions.

Educational provisions for children with disabilities are made in the federal policy

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Act provides that

47 Babel (2017, p. 26)


8472.1333798579.1521719892-1330621690.1521719892

48 https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/50-State-Comparison-K-3-Quality_Updated-1.pdf

https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/50-State-Comparison-K-3-Quality_Updated-1.pdf



children with disabilities will receive equal opportunities to access state-funded

education that fits their needs.

The Act details that any child with special education needs should be assessed

and an Individualized Education Plan devised in collaboration with the child’s

parents, school, education administration officials and other relevant

professionals. An Individualized Education Plan is a statement of the child’s

performance levels, educational goals, school placement and details of specific

services required. The Individualized Education Plan addresses aspects of the

general curriculum that are affected by the child’s disability only.49 The Act also

has a presumption of mainstreaming within the ‘least restrictive environment’.

Given the diversity across the United States of America, the following provides

brief illustrations of education practice in California, Florida and Iowa.

California

Kindergarten is mandatory in California. It is compulsory for students aged six to

attend and so most children begin kindergarten at five years of age. The state has

provided for a fully-funded additional year at Kindergarten, should the parents

choose. This is known as Transitional Kindergarten and is the first year of a two-

year programme (the second being the traditional Kindergarten year).

This provision was put in place primarily to assist students whose fifth birthday

falls between September and December in a given year. Parents can opt to enrol

their child on this two-year programme and once enrolled, the child cannot exit

into Grade 1 after one year. Essentially, the transitional kindergarten is seen as an

extra year before, rather than a retained year after.

However should the parents and school agree that a child would benefit from an

extra year in Kindergarten (where the child is enrolled on the one-year

Kindergarten track), the child can be retained for one extra year only.50 Children

with an Individualized Education Plan can be retained but the

Individualized Education Plan may need to be revised to take into account

the exemption and subsequent learning goals for the extra year.51 Funding for the

extra year is agreed at the district / local level.

49 https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files?file=file-attachments/504001Ch04.pdf

50 https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/em/kindergartenfaq.asp

51 https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/promoretntn.asp

https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files?file=file-attachments/504001Ch04.pdf

https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/em/kindergartenfaq.asp

https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/promoretntn.asp



At the state level, California has no requirement for children to be ‘readiness’

tested entering kindergarten.

Florida

Florida offers free pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) on a voluntary basis to all children

who are four years old on or before the 1stof September in a given year. Parents

whose children turn four between the 2nd of February and the 1stof September

may opt to defer their child’s entry until the following year.52

Children entering Kindergarten must be assessed for readiness within thirty days

of beginning the year. Partly, these assessments assist in identifying students who

may benefit from additional interventions and support. The screening also

incorporates “mechanisms for recognizing potential variations in kindergarten

readiness rates for students with disabilities”.53

For children with a disability as evidenced by an Individualized Education Plan in

place, they are eligible for pre-Kindergarten Specialized Instructional Services.

This is pre-Kindergarten delivered in a specialist setting and offers a range of

additional therapeutic services, for instance, speech and language therapy. These

services are funded but due to the higher cost of delivery, it is noted that

children attending may receive less hours in education compared to traditional

pre-Kindergarten settings.54

In transitioning from pre-Kindergarten to Kindergarten, the Florida Department

for Education note that parents may be hesitant about sending a child to

Kindergarten at the usual age and resources offered to parents stress the

importance of planning for transitions. In particular, meetings between the

parents, child, new teacher and school administrator, are recommended to assist

in the transition process.55

Florida does not have a statutory provision for age exemptions or waivers and so

decisions around deferred school entry take place at the local level.

52 http://www.floridaearlylearning.com/vpk.aspx

53http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL

=1000-1099/1002/Sections/1002.69.html

54http://www.floridaearlylearning.com/sites/www/Uploads/files/Oel%20Resources/2015%20VPK%

20SIS%20Fact%20Sheet%205.12.15.pdf

55 http://www.readingrockets.org/article/paving-way-kindergarten-young-children-disabilities

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/paving-way-kindergarten-young-children-disabilities



Appendix 3 – International evidence on the retention of

children in early childhood settings

Scope of the literature review

Evidence on the effects of delayed school entry from the literature are reviewed

in this document from the perspective of ‘redshirting’ and grade retention. The

review sought evidence to support or refute the notion that delayed school entry

helps the child’s socialising / developmental skills to ‘catch-up’.

Where possible, the studies reviewed looked specifically at the effects as they

relate to children with disabilities. However, research which disaggregates for this

population, is not bountiful.

Of particular interest were studies of delayed school entry which show the:

Educational, social or cognitive effects

Short - medium- and longer-term effects, and

Effects related to differentials in chronological age with counterparts

Issues in reviewing the evidence

It is very difficult to isolate the variables required to analyse the effects of delayed

school entry relevant to the Irish context of overage exemptions for children

with disabilities. To begin, there is limited research on the effects of delayed

school entry and retention for children with disabilities. More recently, attention

has been given to the practice of ‘redshirting’56 and the effects this has on children

with disabilities57 but the context is difficult to match with the educational

landscape in Ireland.

There are distinctions between children who are delayed from entering any

formal education setting, and children who are delayed entering primary school

but retained in a pre-school setting for an extra year. There are also differences

between children who are retained for a second year in the pre-school setting

where explicit targets are worked towards in the extra year (for example,

educational, social, emotional, behavioural targets, and so on) and children who

undertake a second year at pre-school without any specific direction as to the

purpose or goal of this extra year, and even children who undertake a two-year

56 Delaying entry to primary school, giving an extra year for the child to mature.

57 Fortner and Jenkins (2017; 2018)



programme at pre-school (for example, as with some Transitional Kindergarten

programmes). Much of the research has been carried out in American settings.

However, different states may or may not have pre-Kindergarten educational

settings so often children whose entry is delayed are kept in the home, rather

than in preschool (pre-K, or pre-Kindergarten). The search for relevant studies

to the Irish context has been difficult, as much of the research is not comparing

like for like contextually.

In the more general studies on delayed school entry and retention in grade, the

data can be confounded by the parent’s decision making, (that is, selection bias);

the effects of the household environment and attention to home-based learning,

(for example, early literacy skills); local educational culture, (for example, where

delaying entry to primary school is a more visible parental option) and social

factors like socio-economic statusgender, etc. It can prove difficult to isolate the

‘pure’ effects of delayed school entry.

This literature review is presented with these caveats in mind.

Early Childhood Care and Education (Early Childhood Care and

Education)

Ireland

In the Irish context, early childhood refers to the time in the child’s life from

birth to six years.58 UNESCO provide classification of education programmes

through the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED)

and children in the Early Childhood Care and Education programme

participate in programmes at the International Standard Classification of

Education Level 0.

Ring et al.59 (2016) outline two categories of programmes at this level:

1. Early childhood educational development programmes which include

appropriate educational content for children from birth to three years.

2. Pre-primary education programmes, which have an emphasis on social skills

and interaction with peers and educators, cognitive skills (like logic and

reasoning), early literacy skills (alphabet and mathematical concepts),

58

https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/earlyyears/20170118AnExaminationOfConceptsOfSchoolRe

adinessAmongParentsEducatorsIreland.PDF

59

https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/earlyyears/20170118AnExaminationOfConceptsOfSchoolRe

adinessAmongParentsEducatorsIreland.PDF



exploration of the environment and gross motor development. This second

category is designed for children from the age of three to the commencement

of primary school.

The introduction of the free pre-school year in Ireland in 2010 provides for the

universal pre-primary education and care to children in Ireland and is to be

extended to two free pre-school years from September 201860.


Children are eligible to attend pre-school on reaching 3 years of age (2 years 8

months from September 2018) and can continue in Early Childhood Care and

Education until they begin primary school, provided they are not more than 5

years 6 months at the end of the pre-school year. The compulsory age of primary

school attendance in Ireland is 6 years old. Children with special needs have been

able to apply for an overage exemption, beyond the upper age eligibility for Early

Childhood Care and Education. These applications have been made through

the local Childcare Committees and included

“A detailed assessment report from the HSE or Consultant or a

letter from the Principal of the school stating the school’s policy re

age starting school.”61

Access and Inclusion Model (AIM)

In June 2016, AIM was introduced to ensure that children with disabilities can

access the Early Childhood Care and Education programme. The model works on

seven levels of progressive support (Figure 4).62

60 http://aim.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ecce-eligibility.pdf

61 https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/childcare/eccesept2012/ECCE_Service_Guide.pdf

62 http://aim.gov.ie/



Figure 4 AIM Supports Level 1-7

Levels 1 to 3 encompass universal supports, focussed on fostering inclusivity and

quality in the Early Childhood Care and Education sector and benefit all

children. Levels 4 to 7 encompass more targeted supports for children with

special needs which parents and/or Early Childhood Care and Education

providers can apply for. Children with and without diagnoses can access these

supports. They include:

Expert advice, mentoring and support from Early Years Specialists

Grants to provide for accommodations like equipment and minor building

alterations

Therapy services (provided through AIM and delivered through the HSE);

and, where these supports are not sufficient to meet the needs of the child or

Early Childhood Care and Education provider to allow a child to attend,

Additional capitation to fund classroom supports, or to enable a reduction in

the child to staff ratio.63

Curriculum in early childhood

The introduction of free pre-school years speaks to the growing recognition that

this period in a child’s life is a critical period of development. Most research has

highlighted positive short and longer time impacts. In the short term, pre-school

63 http://aim.gov.ie/for-parents/



education is viewed as fostering key social, cognitive, motor skills and so on. In

the long term, early childhood education has been shown to improve education

and employment outcomes, reduce poverty and social exclusion, and lower

criminality.646566

There is no set curriculum for the Early Childhood Care and Education in

Ireland, though there are policies relevant to the pedagogical approach. Síolta is

the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education. It emphasises

quality in the Early Childhood Care and Education setting, for instance in

relation to standards, principles, staff development and components of quality.67

Any Early Childhood Care and Education setting that offers free pre-school

years must adhere to the principles of Síolta (Figure 5).

Aistear is the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework and focusses on learning

environments, practical resources for developing instruction and learning

opportunities, fostering optimal learning environments and facilitating children to

become competent, confident learners. Aistear outlines four main themes

(Figure 6) around which curricula in the Early Childhood Care and

Education settings should be developed, rather than taking a prescriptive

approach.

In addition to the Early Childhood Care and Education programme, the

curricula at Junior and Senior Infants follows the Aistear framework, and it is

also applicable to more informal learning environments, for example, as guidance

to parents.

Taken together, a Practice Guide has been devised to implement Aistear

Siolta68 with a view to developing an

64 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1667.html

65 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9578996

66http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582008/EPRS_BRI(2016)582008_E

N.pdf

67 http://siolta.ie/media/pdfs/siolta-manual-2017.pdf

68 http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/About/Full-Print-Version/Full-Print-Version-of-Aistear-S-olta-Practice-

Guide.pdf

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1667.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9578996

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582008/EPRS_BRI(2016)582008_EN.pdf


http://siolta.ie/media/pdfs/siolta-manual-2017.pdf

http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/About/Full-Print-Version/Full-Print-Version-of-Aistear-S-olta-Practice-Guide.pdf




“inquiry-based curriculum that motivates, engages and

appropriately challenges all children as learners and enables them to

progress in their individual learning journeys” (p.12).

There is an emphasis on learning by doing, the diversity and unique

characteristics of children, and the important role of adults in children’s

development69. One of the pillars of the Practice Guide is supporting transitions

from the Early Childhood Care and Education settings to Primary School.70

The value of Early

Childhood

Early childhood is a

significant and distinct

time in life that must be

nurtured, respected,

valued and supported in

its own right.

Children First

The child’s individuality,

strengths, rights and

needs are central in the

provision of quality early

childhood experiences.

Parents

Parents are the primary

educators of the child and

have a pre-eminent role in

promoting her/his well-

being, learning and

development.

Relationships

Responsive, sensitive and

reciprocal relationships,

which are consistent over

time, are essential to the

wellbeing,

Equality

Equality is an essential

characteristic of quality

early childhood care and

education.

Diversity

Quality early childhood

settings acknowledge and

respect diversity and

ensure that all children and

families have their

individual, personal, cultural

69 https://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Language-New-Junior-infants-2nd-

class

70 http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Transitions/Supporting-Transitions.pdf

https://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Language-New-Junior-infants-2nd-class

https://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Language-New-Junior-infants-2nd-class

http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Transitions/Supporting-Transitions.pdf



learning and development

of the young child.

and linguistic identity

validated.

Environments

The physical environment

of the young child has a

direct impact on her/his

well-being, learning and

development.

Welfare

The safety, welfare and

well-being of all children

must be protected and

promoted in all early

childhood environments.

Role of the Adult

The role of the adult in

providing quality early

childhood experiences is

fundamental.

Teamwork

The provision of quality

early childhood

experiences requires

cooperation,

communication and

mutual respect.

Pedagogy

Pedagogy in early

childhood is expressed

by curricula or

programmes of activities

which take a holistic

approach to the

development and

learning of the child and

reflect the inseparable

nature of care and

education.

Play

Play is central to the well-

being, development and

learning of the young child.

Figure 5 Principles of Siolta71

71 http://siolta.ie/media/pdfs/siolta-manual-2017.pdf



Figure 6 Key curriculum themes under Aistear72

Learning through play – early years curriculum

Whitebread et al. (2012)73 provided a report on the importance of children’s play

within the contemporary European context, highlighting that play has been a

consistent and important part of cultures since the Stone Age. The types of play

(physical, symbolic, pretence/sociodramatic, play with objects, and play with

rules) are found across cultures however, societal attitudes as to the importance

72 http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Aistear/Introduction-to-Aistear-Principles-and-Themes.pdf

73 http://www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/dr_david_whitebread_-

_the_importance_of_play.pdf



of play vary and these attitudes affect how the child is encouraged and supported

to play.

Whitebread et al. note that the “evidence for the developmental benefits of play

is actually now overwhelming” (p.14). Citing Vygotsky, they discuss the

importance of play for the development of language and self-regulation, and the

power these skills have on future academic and socio-emotional outcomes and

wellbeing.

Increasing urbanisation, over-scheduling of children’s time and parental risk-

aversion has seen the shrinkage of play spaces and opportunities for children to

engage in play. Early education and child care settings are important sites in this

regard. Play-based curricula assist in the child’s development and learning and

many educators and researchers are wary of the increasing academic demands

placed in the early years, the separation of ‘learning’ and ‘play’.

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on Early Years Learning in

the European Union in 2011. This emphasised the importance of the early

childhood years for children’s development and highlighted that children have a

right to rest, leisure and play.74

Traditionally, European policy on Early Childhood Education and Care was

to facilitate the caregiver’s - usually the mother’s - (re)integration to the labour

market.75 As the importance of Early Childhood Education and Care is

better understood (particularly in relation to mitigating inequality, supporting

children’s development and preparing for later employability), the setting is

increasingly being emphasised for its educational rather than childcare function.

For disadvantaged children, including children with disabilities, quality input in

Early Childhood Education and Care settings can lead to better outcomes

later on.7677

74 http://www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/dr_david_whitebread_-


75

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582008/EPRS_BRI(2016)582008_EN.

pdf

76

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582008/EPRS_BRI(2016)582008_EN.

pdf

77 NDA (2013) National Disability Authority briefing paper on the impact of participation for a

second year in the Early Childhood Care and Education programme by children with disabilities



Ring and O’Sullivan (2017) highlighted a difference in how parents and educators

view the role of play in the early years of primary school. Where pre-school

(97%) and primary school (98%) educators referred to play as a context for

learning, only 4 parents in their sample (n=30) mentioned play. Instead, the

parents focussed on aspects of the child’s readiness and anticipated behaviours in

school such as basic self-care (for example, toileting), communication and social

skills and the capacity to learn independently.

The role of Early Childhood Care and Education in Ireland is evolving.

Where Junior and Senior Infant classes were once viewed as the play-based,

preparatory beginnings of education, the growth of Early Childhood Care and

Education places and enrolment has possibly stretched the educational

continuum in Ireland.

The transition from pre-school to primary school for children with

disabilities

The transition from pre-school to primary school is a momentous time in a

child’s life and for parents of children with disabilities, this time can bring added

concerns.

Wildenger78 compared the transition from pre-school to primary school

(kindergarten) for typically developing children and children who were

developmentally delayed. As one might expect, the families of children with

developmental delays had more concerns than the families of typically developing

children. These concerns appeared to peak in the spring of pre-school and

decline towards the autumn of Kindergarten.

The concerns of parents tended to centre of specific capacities, such as the child

following directions, getting along with the other children and teacher, basic self-

care (for example, toileting) and being able to communicate their needs. Many of

these reflect Ring et al.’s79 general concepts of school readiness (for all children)

which will be discussed in more depth later.

78https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esr

c=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZwtrny4rbAhVK46QKHWr0CBgQFg

hBMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsurface.syr.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1165%26

context%3Dpsy_etd&usg=AOvVaw0HK8is1ymsmmSE8mb9_kPt&httpsredir=1&article=1165&c

ontext=psy_etd

79https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/earlyyears/20170118AnExaminationOfConceptsOfSchoolR

eadinessAmongParentsEducatorsIreland.PDF

https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZwtrny4rbAhVK46QKHWr0CBgQFghBMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsurface.syr.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1165%26context%3Dpsy_etd&usg=AOvVaw0HK8is1ymsmmSE8mb9_kPt&httpsredir=1&article=1165&context=psy_etd





https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/earlyyears/20170118AnExaminationOfConceptsOfSchoolReadinessAmongParentsEducatorsIreland.PDF




Wildenger also examined pre-school and Kindergarten teachers, finding that pre-

school teachers were more likely to share the parental concerns around

transition. In contrast, Kindergarten teachers did not appear more concerned

around the transitions of developmentally delayed children than typically

developing children.

Janus et al.80 examined kindergarten transition issues for children with special

needs within the Canadian context and highlighted several recurring themes,

most of which appear structural:

There was a lack of ‘case management’ of the child’s records

There was a lack of communication – parent - school and pre-school -

primary school

Pre-school funding for children’s services expired at 5 years old or

commencement in primary school. This meant the transition could bring

disruption of funding and services

There was a lack of flexibility when changing from one system of supports to

another

The perceptions of educators was that transition, for children with disabilities,

was not a ‘problem’

Wildenger’s themes appear to place many of the issues on the child’s readiness

for school rather than whether the systems and structures of schools are ready

for the child. For children with disabilities, transitions must take account the

child, parents and providers.81

Readiness for School

The concept of “readiness” is constructed in various ways and relates to

paradigms of child learning and development. The maturational view takes the

position that a child should be sufficiently mature / developed prior to entering

the learning environment. The interactionist view emphasises the importance of

the child’s experiences, interactions and relationships within the learning

environment on their development.

Parents may take a unidirectional, maturational view of readiness, which centres

on the child being equipped to handle the demands of entry to primary school

before attending - for instance, the demands of the new setting and people,

80 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ780817.pdf

81 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001440299105800205



possible differences in class size, tuition time, curriculum, etc.8283 In contrast,

researchers often take a bidirectional view of readiness, meaning that a child

“cannot simply mature into readiness” (Foster and Jenkins, 2017, p. 45). They

support the view that the challenges that primary school brings spur on the

development of the child. Exposure to new experiences grows and the child, in

effect, learns and matures ‘by doing’.

Ring et al.84 examined concepts of school readiness among parents, pre-school

educators and managers, and primary educators and principals in Ireland (Figure

7). Their research highlighted the multi-faceted nature of readiness, noting the

inextricable link made between maturity and school readiness with the age of the

child.

Ring et al. also found differences between pre-school educators and managers,

and primary school teachers and principals as to the importance placed on pre-

academic skills prior to entering primary school, for example, the importance of

early literacy skills like the child recognising their own name and numbers.85

Ring et al. reported that parents and early years educators tended to view Early

Childhood Care and Education as having an important role in preparing

children academically for primary school (Figure 8). It is possible that these views

influence how a child’s readiness to progress to primary is interpreted, despite

the curriculum at Junior and Senior Infants being based on the same Aistear

framework. What’s more, there is an argument that early years settings in

various jurisdictions have become more academically focussed in preparing the

child for primary school (for example, the debates in the USA around school

readiness and Kindergarten standardised testing).86 These higher standards may

82https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308922699_Kindergarten_redshirting_Motivations_a

nd_spillovers_using_census-level_data





85 Pre-school educators had a tendency to rate the importance of these skills more highly than

primary school respondents.

86 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ973826

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308922699_Kindergarten_redshirting_Motivations_and_spillovers_using_census-level_data

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308922699_Kindergarten_redshirting_Motivations_and_spillovers_using_census-level_data





https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ973826



have knock-on effects for how the primary-school readiness of children with any

developmental concerns may be viewed.

Figure 7 Stakeholders' perspectives on how pre-school prepares

children for school (Ring et al., 2017, p.69)

An aim of Ring et al.’s study was to assess the impact of the introduction of the

free primary school year (FPSY) on approaches to school readiness among early

years educators. Most early years educators (58.7%) indicated that FPSY did not

impact on their approach to readiness. However Ring et al. included a suggestion

in their report from one of the early years educators that as FPSY was designated

as an educational grant, ‘education-type’ activities were more important than

activities like crafting or baking.

Early years educator study participants viewed age as a key determinant of

readiness. Participants expressed

…some concerns about the age bands for the current FPSY, noting

that if a child is in the younger age band (that is. three years and

two months), they may not be ready for school on completion of

the FPSY and would benefit from a second year. (p.140)

Teachers’ view of child development can have the greatest effect on the decision

to retain a child.87 Ring et al.’s report found that early years educators were more

87 McCleskey and Grizzle (1992) ‘Grade retention rates among students with learning

disabilities’, Exceptional Children, May Issue, pp. 548-554.



likely to discuss readiness with parents. In discussing findings on readiness in

relation to children with special educational needs, they noted

Primary schools had significantly more supports and strategies in place for

students with special needs than early years settings did,

Early years were significantly more likely than primary school respondents to

report parental concerns about lack of support for children with special

education needs

Parents may be less familiar with the provision of additional supports for

children with special needs in primary school

One of the most significant concerns identified for parents around their child

starting primary school is the availability of supports for children with special

educational / health issues

Much of the literature on readiness originates in the USA where readiness is

often a quantifiable category. As of 2014, 26 states were testing children using

standardised screening and assessment programmes that evaluate their social,

cognitive, educational, physical and/or emotional performance for their age88. In

other instances, the child’s readiness can be ascribed by a parental (or

professional) felt-sense of how they will get on in the new environment, and can

be seen anecdotally across multiple parenting blogs.8990

88 http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestRT?rep=Kq1407

89 http://www.alittlelondoner.com/making-big-decisions-as-parents-is-our-child-ready-for-

school/#.Ws4k4FWnHGg

90 https://herviewfromhome.com/do-i-send-my-child-to-kindergarten-or-wait-one-more-year/



Figure8 Key school readiness indicators found in Ring et al. study

(2016)

The ‘unready’ child

The maturational perspective views development as biological and time-bound,

with school readiness deficits lying with the child rather than the school

•Primary school respondents - age 6 'too late' (49.5%); age 6 'about right (16.2%)

•Early years respondents - age 6 'too late' (21%); age 6 'about right (44.4%)

School starting age

•for example, the child's capacity to separate from parents, empathise, be part of a group, share

Social and emotional skills

•for example, the child's curiosity, enthusiasm, perseverance at a taskDispositions

•for example, child's fluency in native tongue, fluency in language of instruction, comprehension

Language developemt

•for example, child managing toileting, tidying up, being able to open school bag/lunch box,Self-help skills

•for example, child's capacity to self-regulate, participate in learning activities, be attentive, express their needs, attract teacher's attention

Classroom behaviour

•for example, whether child can regonise their name, numbers/letters, colours shapes

Pre-academic skills



environment.91 As a result, many of the practices and interventions to manage

readiness, or ‘unreadiness’, are focussed on giving the child time to mature and

become prepared for the demands of primary school. These main practices will

now be discussed.

‘Redshirting’

‘Redshirting’92 is a common term used in the USA and throughout the literature

to refer to delayed school entry, usually involving the child being delayed starting

primary school. The practice relates to the view that a child would benefit from

an extra year before beginning school and is sometimes viewed as ‘the gift of

time’.

Barnard-Brak93 defines ‘redshirting’ as the voluntary practice of “delaying a child’s

entry into school in order to give him or her the developmental benefits of

having been left back, thus entering the next grade at an older age” (p.43). For

some children, the delay can also be viewed as a chance to ‘catch up’ to the

perceived state of readiness needed to begin primary school.

Delaying a child’s entry to school may occur for a variety of reasons949596,

including:

The child being slightly younger at the eligible school age (that is, their month

of birth makes them younger compared to their year-group)

The belief that a child is not ‘ready’ to begin school for social, emotional,

cognitive or other reasons;

The belief that giving the child an extra year to mature will confer advantage;

91 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00094056.2008.10523022

92 The term originates from the college sporting practice to ‘bench’ freshman athletes for their

first year (rather than playing them in competition) to allow them to gain athletic and physical

prowess.

93 Barnard-Brak, L. (2008) ‘Academic red-shirting among children with learning disabilities’,

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 43-54.

94 https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98097.pdf

95https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Martin35/publication/232540499_Age_Appropri

ateness_and_Motivation_Engagement_and_Performance_in_High_School_Effects_of_Age_Wit

hin_Cohort_Grade_Retention_and_Delayed_School_Entry/links/5859e0b608ae3852d2559e13/

Age-Appropriateness-and-Motivation-Engagement-and-Performance-in-High-School-Effects-of-

Age-Within-Cohort-Grade-Retention-and-Delayed-School-Entry.pdf


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00094056.2008.10523022



A culture of parents delaying school entry / redshirting which influences other

parents; and/or,

The parents being advised by early years education / childcare professionals

that their child would benefit from being retained in the early years /

preschool setting (that is,. delayed school entry as an intervention).

‘Redshirting’ is often viewed as an advantage due to the assumption that older

children will have a higher level of maturity for their age cohort, and as a result,

will have an edge. The choice to delay entry in order to confer a perceived edge

or advantage among the peer group is known as positive selection.97 It is sometimes

also referred to as ‘gaming behaviour’, reflecting the notion that parents choosing

to redshirt children for advantage are attempting to game the system.98

Many other parents choose to redshirt their children on the basis of concerns for

their development, particularly when compared with the child’s peer and age

cohort. Also known as negative selection or a developmental response to

‘redshirting’, the focus here is less on conferring advantage and more on the

child’s readiness to enter school99. Many point out the counterintuitive nature of

negative selection where by virtue of being retained at home or in the early

year’s setting, the child may not access key educational and support services until

they begin primary school – services which would assist the child’s development

and readiness for education.

Qualitative investigation of the motivations to delay kindergarten entry shows a

similar dichotomy. Noel and Newman (2010) reported that mothers who had

opted to delay their child’s school start fell into two categories – those delaying

due to developmental concerns or other child variables, and those delaying on

the basis of their personal philosophies on child development and schooling.100

Grade retention

Grade retention is the practice of ‘holding a child back’, in other words, keeping

the child at the same grade level for an additional year101. Like with red-shirting,

97 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200616300795



100 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15566935eed1404_6?needAccess=true

101 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.529.1365&rep=rep1&type=pdf



children are often retained on the basis that having an extra year will allow them

to ‘catch-up’ and mitigate future failure in the higher classes.102

In Ireland, Primary Circular 32/03 (2003) outlines the policy on retaining children

in primary school103, stressing that retention takes place only in exceptional

circumstances and for educational reasons. The school principal, following

consultations with the learning support teacher, class teacher and parents may

make a decision to retain the child. A programme must be put in place for any

retained child detailing the ‘new’ approach that will be taken with the child in the

additional year and a clear outline of the expected benefits.

In the US, the introduction of standardised testing and quantification of

‘readiness’ has been used as a means to identify children who are under-

performing at kindergarten and other levels. These children may be retained for

an additional year. There is evidence from the literature that educators have

limited knowledge of the research on grade retention. Despite a wealth of

evidence showing that at best, retention has little impact on positive outcomes,

most view the practice positively - especially in the early years and as an

intervention to prevent future failure.104105106

Social promotion

Social promotion is the opposite of grade retention and is hotly debated in the

US. It is usually defined as the practice of promoting a child to the next grade,

even where they have not met the educational standards to do so.107 Opponents

of social promotion often cite the negative effects of grade retention on children

while proponents see it as a motivating force for students that allows for greater

accountability and standards in schools. 108

102 https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR678.pdf

103 https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/pc32_03.pdf

104 https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/4681/research.pdf?sequence=3


106

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA127013745&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it

=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=00131172&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=tr

ue

107 https://www.colorado.edu/education/sites/default/files/attached-files/Flunking%20Grades.pdf




Making the case for social promotion, proponents often take an interactionist

view of the child’s readiness to enter the next grade.109110 Instead of the child

hitting milestones / standards before progressing, they argue that scaffolding the

child’s learning and providing for new challenges that are above the child’s ability

spur on learning and achievement.

Further discussion on the effects of ‘redshirting’, grade retention and social

promotion will now be discussed.

Literature review

Research on ‘redshirting’ / delayed school entry

In general, the evidence on the outcomes of redshirting is mixed.111,112,113

Children who are redshirted tend to be male, from higher socio-economic

classes and have higher rates of later participation in special educational services

in primary school.114115116

Much of the research showing the positive outcomes of ‘’redshirting’ looked at

the relative age of the child – the ‘old for grade’ effects - finding that older

children were more likely to score higher on academic tests117,118,119, were more

109

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ah

UKEwiapNPD7PraAhVCL1AKHeJ3ApAQFgguMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stirling.gov.uk%

2F__documents%2Feducation-and-

learning%2Fenrolment%2Fdeferredentryresearch.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1i5-lUSuN8Z23jLbXb1JKs




113

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Martin35/publication/232540499_Age_Appropriat

eness_and_Motivation_Engagement_and_Performance_in_High_School_Effects_of_Age_Within

_Cohort_Grade_Retention_and_Delayed_School_Entry/links/5859e0b608ae3852d2559e13/Age

-Appropriateness-and-Motivation-Engagement-and-Performance-in-High-School-Effects-of-Age-

Within-Cohort-Grade-Retention-and-Delayed-School-Entry.pdf



116 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00028312037002509

117 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/4/1437/1855234?redirectedFrom=fulltext

118 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-04640-022

119 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775705000117



likely to attend college120 and were more likely to occupy leadership roles in

secondary (high) school121.

Children who were old for grade were also at higher risk of school dropout, and

more likely to have to social / emotional issues122. Some studies refuted the claim

of academic advantage showing little or no effect on educational outcomes and

highlighted children’s disengagement and lower homework completion.123

Much of the research has not controlled for the motivations to redshirt children

nor considered the effects of delayed school entry on children with disabilities124

however more recently, specific studies pertaining to children with disabilities

have been undertaken which will be discussed below.

It is important to note that the vast majority of research on delayed school entry

has taken place within the American context. Many studies have focussed on

delayed school entry at the kindergarten level but as there is limited uptake of

pre-school (pre-K) in the US, these children may be kept out of an educational

environment in the ‘delayed’ year. Thus it is difficult to compare like with like and

extrapolating results to the Irish context should be treated with caution.

Delayed school entry for children with disabilities

Datar (2006) Does delaying school entry give children a head start?

Datar125 examined groups of children using the Early Childhood Longitudinal

Study – Kindergarten (ECLS-K) to determine whether kindergarten entrance

age has an effect on children’s academic achievement in elementary school. A

key aspect of her research addressed whether at-risk children, including children

120 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/4/1437/1855234?redirectedFrom=fulltext

121

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C1CBBA9CABF56A1A58B5987ACCC

5B75B?doi=10.1.1.394.8881&rep=rep1&type=pdf


123

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Martin35/publication/232540499_Age_Appropriat

eness_and_Motivation_Engagement_and_Performance_in_High_School_Effects_of_Age_Within

_Cohort_Grade_Retention_and_Delayed_School_Entry/links/5859e0b608ae3852d2559e13/Age

-Appropriateness-and-Motivation-Engagement-and-Performance-in-High-School-Effects-of-Age-

Within-Cohort-Grade-Retention-and-Delayed-School-Entry.pdf

124

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308922699_Kindergarten_redshirting_Motivations_an

d_spillovers_using_census-level_data

125 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775705000117



with disabilities, benefit from delaying kindergarten entrance. Datar specifically

investigated whether children who enter kindergarten later score higher and gain

faster than their younger counterparts using same-grade comparison.

She examined maths and readings scores at two points on the ECLS-K: fall of

kindergarten and spring of 1st grade (that is. after two years in school).

Consistent with other studies, Datar found that children with disabilities were

more likely to enter kindergarten at an older age and their initial test scores

were lower than children without disabilities – children without disabilities

scored just over one-third higher on maths scores and 60% higher on reading

scores. She also examines the effects of age of entry, finding:

A disabled child who enters kindergarten at age 5 scores

significantly lower on math and reading compared to a child with no

disability. However, delaying a disabled child’s entrance into

kindergarten by 1 year raises her test scores at kindergarten entry

beyond that of a 5-year-old entrant with no disability. These results

suggest that an extra year out of school compensates to a large

extent for the disadvantage presented by disabilities (2006, p. 56).

Fortner and Jenkins (2017) Kindergarten Redshirting: Motivations and

spillovers using census-level data.

Fortner and Jenkins (2017) tested the effects of delayed school entry for children

with special educational or developmental needs. The study employed three

panels of state-wide educational administrative data from the North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). By examining exact birthdates,

children who were redshirted were identified and matched with their individual

educational achievements in maths and reading at third grade (the year of the first

standardised tests administered), providing for across-year comparison.

Three categories of children were identified across three time cohorts (2007-08,

2008-09, 2009-10) and outcomes compared:

Children who entered kindergarten at the normal age of school entry,

according to the state-wide compulsory school age

Parents who had redshirted their children on the basis of concerns about

their child’s development (negative selection)

Parents who redshirted their children, not out of any concerns, but rather to

confer a perceived advantage (positive selection)

The researchers included a number of control variables in their analysis, for

example, the child’s ethnicity, socio-economic status, English language proficiency,

absence from school, grade retention, etc. In general, Fortner and Jenkins found

that white, male students were more likely to be redshirted as were students



from higher socio-economic groups, consistent with previous studies. Another

finding was that ‘redshirting’ incidences were clustered in certain communities,

possibly due to ‘redshirting’ behaviour by some parents influencing other parents

to adopt the practice.

The researchers reported that where 10% of redshirted students were more

likely to be identified as ‘gifted’ by the third grade. In their disability classification

modelling, the odds of redshirted students being identified as disabled were 1.75

times higher than normal entry students. This was viewed as support for the

notion that parents are delaying their child’s school entry based on

developmental concerns.

Of particular interest, were the comparisons between the children who had been

designated as having an identified disability by the third grade. Although, not the

main focus of the research, the comparisons made found that of these children,

those who had been redshirted performed nearly one-third of a standard

deviation lower on the third-grade standardised maths test and no different to

normal entry students on the standardised third-grade reading test. As such, this

is one of the first studies to show a detrimental effect of delayed school entry for

children with disabilities.

Fortner and Jenkins are unequivocal, despite the relatively small size of these

comparative groups, that

The hold-out year is doubly costly for children with developmental

concerns: parents must spend their time or money to care for the

child while they are not in kindergarten, and this time away from

school may be detrimental to their child’s wellbeing. (p. 52)

They note that children with developmental concerns who present to public

schools have access to better intervention services and supports which allow for

the earlier identification of their needs, and well-structured interventions and

instruction. Fortner and Jenkins further call on educators to reach out and

encourage parents who have concerns about their child’s development to enrol

them in school as soon as they are eligible to attend.

Fortner and Jenkins (2018), Is delayed school entry harmful for children

with disabilities?

Following from their 2017 research, Fortner and Jenkins further their research

on the effects of delayed school entry for children with disabilities, particularly

from the viewpoint that children with disabilities are not a homogenous group.

With the percentage of children with disabilities increasingly enrolling in

mainstream schooling (reported at 13%), and the number of children being

redshirted increasing each year, the researchers specifically sought to examine



the effects of delayed entry to kindergarten for children across a number of

disability categories.

Using the same NCDPI dataset for the years 2006-2007 through 2012-2013,

children who had been redshirted and children who had entered school at the

normal time were identified. The children’s enrolment in years 2007-2008, 2008-

2009 and 2009-2010 were linked to their third grade End of Grade (EOG0

standardised test records in the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

North Carolina provides sixteen categories of disability though researchers re-

classified the designations in order to streamline the model and cater for low-

incidence categories. Thus, seven categories were outlined and children re-

categorised based on their third-grade records that identified a disability.

Children who were identified as having multiple disabilities were rare (0.001% of

the sample) and were excluded. Table 31 outlines the researcher categories and

frequency of children identified in each.

Category Percentage of

All Students

Percentage of

Students with

Disabilities

Percentage of

Students

Redshirted in

each Disability

Category

NCDPI Designation

Cognitive 0.2% 1.4% 11%

Intellectual Disability – Mild

Intellectual Disability –

Moderate

Intellectual Disability – Severe

Traumatic Brain Injury

Physical/Sensory 0.2% 1.5% 9%

Deaf-Blindness

Deafness

Hearing Impairment

Orthopaedic Impairment

Visual Impairment Including

Blindness

Category Percentage of

All Students

Percentage of

Students with

Disabilities

Percentage of

Students

Redshirted in

NCDPI Designation



Table 31 Categories of disabilities used for analysis (Fortner and

Jenkins, 2018, p.174)

First, Fortner and Jenkins tested the association between ‘redshirting’ and

disability (Models 1 and 4, Table 32), and ‘redshirting’ and disability (by category).

Consistent with their 2017 study, they found a negative association overall

between ‘redshirting’ and student achievement for those identified as having a

disability by the third grade (-0.20 SD).

Maths scores for redshirted children with disabilities were -0.6 SD lower when

compared to their peers identified as having a disability but who started school at

the normal time. As regards reading scores, the combined effect of ‘redshirting’

was not statistically significant, and children with disabilities who were redshirted

scored roughly the same as peers with disabilities who began school at the

normal time.

Second, Fortner and Jenkins disaggregated the achievement scores by types of

disability and found variation in achievement across categories (Models 2 and 5,

Table 32). For example, students identified as having a speech/language

impairment had lower expected maths achievement scores (-0.14 SD) and lower

readings scores (-0.22 SD) while students identified as having a cognitive disability

appeared to have more strongly negative effects – maths scores were expected

to be -1.16 SD lower and for reading they were expected to be -0.28 SD lower.

each Disability

Category

Psychological 0.7% 5.0% 8%

Autism

Serious Emotional Dis.

Learning 4.4% 31.2% 5% Specific Learning Disability

Speech/Language 6.3% 44.5% 5% Speech or Language

Impairment

Developmental

Delay 0.7% 4.7% 3% Developmental Delay

Other Disability 1.7% 11.8% 5% Other Health Impairment

Total 14.1% 100% 4%



Table 32 Regression results for control variables included models 1-6

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Math Math Math Reading Reading Reading

Redshirt 0.131** 0.103** 0.137** 0.173** 0.151** 0.182**

(0.011) (0.010) (0.011) (0.011) (0.010) (0.011)

Disabled -0.396** 0.000 0.000 -0.515** 0.000 0.000

(0.007) (.) (.) (0.008) (.) (.)

Redshirt * Disabled -0.196**

-0.188**

(0.026)

(0.028)

Cognitive Disability

-1.158** -1.105**

-1.281** -1.228**

(0.052) (0.052)

(0.048) (0.048)

Physical Disability

-0.420** -0.420**

-0.472** -0.472**

(0.040) (0.042)

(0.044) (0.045)

Psychological Disability

-0.600** -0.584**

-0.624** -0.613**

(0.026) (0.027)

(0.024) (0.025)

Learning Disability

-0.602** -0.589**

-0.898** -0.887**

(0.011) (0.011)

(0.013) (0.013)

Speech / Language Disability

-0.142** -0.141**

-0.219** -0.218**

(0.008) (0.008)

(0.007) (0.008)

Developmental Delay

-0.516** -0.505**

-0.522** -0.513**

(0.023) (0.024)

(0.022) (0.023)

Other Health Impairment

-0.767** -0.752**

-0.774** -0.755**

(0.016) (0.016)

(0.016) (0.017)

Redshirt * Cognitive Disability

-0.485**

-0.499**

(0.129)

(0.143)

Redshirt * Physical Disability

-0.017

-0.017

(0.124)

(0.139)

Redshirt * Psychological

Disability

-0.216*

-0.158

(0.096)

(0.101)

Redshirt * Learning Disability

-0.256**

-0.216**

(0.038)

(0.044)

Redshirt * Speech / Language

Disability

-0.028

-0.034

(0.032)

(0.033)



Redshirt * Developmental Delay

-0.343*

-0.305*

(0.143)

(0.130)

Redshirt * Other Health

Impairment

-0.288**

-0.358**

(0.073)

(0.074)

Constant 0.379** 0.372** 0.370** 0.417** 0.409** 0.407**

(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.009) (0.008) (0.008)

N 261402 261402 261402 260102 260102 260102

Robust standard errors in parentheses. All models include the full set of controls for student characteristics

including: race/ethnicity, English language proficiency status, age (as distance from the cut-off), free or reduced-

price lunch eligibility, days absent in third grade, and indicators for academically or intellectually gifted and

retained in grade (between kindergarten and third grade). Model results (coefficients) for control variables are

available in the Online Supplemental Material, Table 2. * p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Fortner and Jenkins (2018, p.176)

Models 3-6 tested for heterogeneity in associations by introducing interaction

terms between each disability category and ‘redshirting’ status. Maths

achievement scores were significantly lower for redshirted students in all

categories but physical disabilities and speech/language impairment. Reading

scores were significantly lower for ‘redshirted’ students in all categories but

physical and psychological disabilities and speech/language impairment.

Finally, to properly interpret the total association between disability, ‘redshirting’

and student outcomes, the researchers took into account the positive

associations between ‘redshirting’ and achievement as well as the negative

associations between achievement and ‘redshirting’ students with different types

of disability. The combined coefficient and standard errors for the terms

comprising the interactions were estimated in order to present predicted

differences between EOG maths scores in 3rd grade for children in each disability

category who had redshirted, versus those who had not. Figures 9 and 10

illustrate the differences in predicted scores.



Figure 9 Predicted 3rd Grade Outcomes by Disability Type – Math

Taken together, the results of the analyses show little evidence for an association

between ‘redshirting’ students with identified disabilities and higher test scores.

The exception to this is in speech / language impairments, where both maths and

reading scores were predicted to be higher for redshirted students than those

entering school at the normal time. Fortner and Jenkins conclude that generally-

speaking, parents of children with disabilities should be encouraged to enrol their

child in school as soon as possible, not least to access supports available. In the

case of speech / language impairments, children may benefit from an extra year to

develop their language and literacy skills.

-1.7

-1.5

-1.3

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

Cognitive Physical Psychological Learning Speech/Lang. Dev. Delay Other HealthImp.

Standardized Math Score

Disability Type

Predicted 3rd Grade Outcomes by Disability Type - Math

Normal Entry

Redshirtn.s.

p<0.05

p<0.01

p<0.01

n.s.

n.s.

p<0.05



Figure 10 Predicted 3rd Grade Outcomes by Disability Type - Reading

Barnard-Brak, Stevens and Albright (2017) Academic red-shirting and

academic achievement among students with ADHD

Teachers and parents have a tendency to evaluate children’s development and

educational readiness based on comparison with peers, rather than performance.

126 Barnard-Brak et al.127 found that children with ADHD were 1.48 times more

likely to be redshirted. It is possible the behaviours of redshirted children with

ADHD can appear more age-appropriate when compared to younger classmates,

particularly as many of the signs of ADHD relate to impulse control and

inhibition. This has implications for readiness concepts, referral and identifying

support needs for these children.

126 http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/44/3/641.refs

127 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284015229_Academic_red-

shirting_and_academic_achievement_among_students_with_ADHD



Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten

(ECLS-K), the researchers identified children who were medicated (n=426) and

un-medicated (n=631) for ADHD, their maths and reading scores at seven time

points from the fall semester of kindergarten to the summer semester of 8th

grade, and their ‘redshirting’ status (for example, voluntary/parental decision).

The growth rate for redshirted children with ADHD (medicated) on reading was

not statistically significant across time. For maths, there was a statistically

significant inverse relationship suggesting that the more likely a student was to be

redshirted, the slower the rate of growth over time. However, for children with

ADHD (un-medicated), there was a positive relationship between red-shirting

and rate of growth in maths over time.

Barnard-Brak et al. also considered the symptoms of inattention over time,

finding that for medicated students who were red-shirted, they had a statistically

significant rate of growth in their inattention over time. The researchers

conclude that “the ‘gift of time’ does not appear to translate into children with

ADHD who were red-shirted relative to children with ADHD who were not

red-shirted” (p.10).

Barnard-Brak et al. also emphasise that how the child is stimulated during the

extra year prior to school entry can have an impact on cognitive gains – for

example, whether the child has structured learning experiences in preschool or

the family home.

Research on early grade retention –versus- social promotion

Much research emphasis has been placed on the effects of grade retention versus

social promotion, not least as educational policy in the US has at various times

proposed and opposed the practice of retention.128 The contentious nature of

grade retention has resulted in a large volume of research being carried out into

the effects of the practice. Largely, the evidence is equivocal – grade retention

has little demonstrable benefit and may even be detrimental for children.

A number of meta-analyses provide a good overview of the literature and are

presented below.

128 For example, the Clinton-era ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy aimed to end social promotion;

standardised readiness testing assumes that children not making the grade will be retained in

grade until they are ready to move up.



Meta-analyses

Holmes (1989)129 reported that despite little to no evidence of any academic

benefit from grade retention, the practice remains popular. He reviewed 63

studies including 20 published studies, 22 dissertations, 18 master’s theses, and 3

unpublished papers. The review updated a previous meta-analysis (Holmes and

Matthews, 1984) and concluded that although retention in the early grades was

not as negative as the later grades, the practice was still harmful. Though nine

studies reported positive effects, the retention was often accompanied by

remediation so it was difficult to isolate the retention effects. Many studies also

compared retained children more favourably with their grade-matched rather

than age-matched peers and few studies provided for follow-up. Where gains

were identified and tracked, they tended to be short lived.

Another aspects of Holmes’ review took in more socio-emotional effects of

retention, like personal adjustment, self-concept, attitudes and attendance. He did

not find that attitudes towards school differed between retained and non-

retained students. Regarding personal adjustment, his findings were inconclusive

as the result of ‘no negative effect’ was influenced by large magnitudes of positive

effects from only three studies. Holmes concludes by reiterating findings from a

previous meta-analysis – that the evidence for negative effects consistently

outweighs positive outcomes.

Jimerson (2001) systematically reviewed and provided a meta-analysis of studies

published between 1990 and 1999 on the effects of grade retention. Some of the

key findings of his analysis included:

No significant difference in outcomes among those who were retained in early

or later elementary school grades

The exploration of academic outcomes showed that 47% of the reviewed

research favoured the comparison group of promoted students/matched age

or grade mates over grade retained students, 9% favoured those who were

retained and 48% showed no significant difference between the two groups

The exploration of socio-emotional outcomes showed that 9% of the

reviewed research favoured the comparison group of promoted

students/matched age or grade mates, 5% favoured those who were retained

and 86% showed no significant difference between the two groups

Jimerson highlights the transactional nature of development, specifically the

combination of individual characteristics and history, environments, and




experiences both inside and outside school. He states that given the

developmental history of many retained students,

“it is not surprising that retaining a child at grade level has failed to

demonstrate long-term effectiveness on socioemotional or

achievement outcomes” (p.432).

Jimerson makes the case that retention alone is unlikely to have much remedial

value – additional resources and services are needed to scaffold the child’s

development and lead to better outcomes.

The Rand Organisation did an extensive literature review on the effects of

retention on students’ academic and non-academic outcomes.130 The review took

in 91 studies published from 1980 to 2008 (87 empirical studies, 3 meta-analyses

and one systematic review of literature). Studies published during this period

were selected for their relevance to the subject of the effects of grade retention

and their methodological rigour. The review highlighted some general findings

around grade retention:

Most of the studies found a negative relationship between grade retention and

later academic achievement. Where some studies found that retention led to

academic gains, these gains tended to be short term, tapering off over time.

Other studies comparing retained students to a matched control group of

regularly progressing but low-achieving students found no academic benefit

and even negative impacts on retained students

Where studies found positive academic outcomes around grade retention, the

students tended to receive specific interventions in the additional year and it

is hard to attribute the positive effects to the retention or the interventions

Retained students were more likely to drop out of school, less likely to attend

post-secondary level education, and more likely to have poorer employment

outcomes, for example, lower earnings

For non-academic outcomes, there are mixed reports with some studies

finding that retention led to better social, emotional, attitudinal and

behavioural outcomes, and others finding that it led to worse outcomes.

Children with disabilities and poor health were at increased risk of grade

retention, and kindergarten students are often recommended for retention

on the basis of emotional immaturity and displays of problematic behaviours

130 https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR678.pdf



More specifically, the Rand review covered 11 empirical studies on the academic

effects of retention in the early years (Kindergarten or Grade 1). Researchers

found that being held back at this stage failed to improve academic performance

and often had negative effects on student achievement down the line.

Specific studies on retention at Kindergarten / pre-primary level

Shepard (1989) argues that specific research on the effects of Kindergarten is

needed, rather than attempting to extrapolate results from later-grade retention.

She restates the benefits put forward by many educators, namely that repetition

at Kindergarten level has a different flavour131. It is seen as a preventative measure

to mitigate future failures and as the retention occurs prior to these failures, it

carries less stigma.

Bailtewicz (1998)132 examined the long-term academic outcomes of being retained

in Kindergarten. Children who were retained entered a Transition programme

which provided remediation classes, often as a result of perceived immaturity or

academic deficiency. By comparing these retained children with children who had

been assigned to the Transition programme but did not enter it (that is,. they

were promoted as normal), Bailtewicz found that the retained students’ scores in

reading, maths and language at sixth grade were significantly lower.

It was estimated that the retained students were on average nine months behind

their non-retained peers, and thirteen months behind them in reading scores

specifically. Bailtewicz makes the point that

the retained students are not only chronologically a year behind

their modal peers, but they are also academically a year behind

their classmates who are a year younger (p.14).

Cooley Fruehwirth et al.’s investigated the timing of retention and the effect on

outcomes.133 Using data from the ECLS-K, the researchers found that students

who were retained in kindergarten would have performed 27% higher in the

subsequent year had they not been retained, though these initial losses appear to

diminish over time. They reported that students with the lowest abilities were

more negatively affected by retention, possibly because resources are invested

disproportionately in higher ability retainees.


132 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED424616.pdf

133 http://www.unc.edu/~joubertc/CooleySeminar.pdf



Mantzicopolous and Morrison (1992) note that the repetition of a year at

Kindergarten level is often due to concerns about the child’s (perceived)

developmental readiness and ability to acquire academic skills. It is the

‘intervention of choice’ for children who are immature socially and have difficulty

acquiring basic academic skills.

Comparing retained and promoted students (same-age and same-grade

comparison with matched pairs), Mantzicopolous and Morrison found that

academic gains made in the second (retained) year of Kindergarten did not last

beyond the end of that additional year.

Mantzicopolous and Morrison also examined the behavioural effects of retention,

though they noted that difficulties in identifying appropriate comparative groups

made their findings difficult to interpret. They reported that teacher ratings of

children’s conduct problems, hyperactivity, and anxious, withdrawn or psychotic

behaviours were higher for retained students in the first year of Kindergarten.

Reports of these behaviours sharply declined in the retained year. Though this

suggested that behavioural issues were ameliorated to some degree in the

retained year, the researchers noted that these effects could be a consequence of

Teacher bias - that teachers who support the view of ‘unready’ children will

be more likely to describe them as having highly immature behaviour in the

first year, and

Regression to the mean effects - in this case, that low-performing students

who are retested will likely achieve somewhat higher scores

Despite the reduction in behavioural issues found, the researchers are equivocal

that the “evidence does not support the conclusion that kindergarten retention is

beneficial to young at-risk children” (1992, p.196).

Mantzicopolous followed up this study with a re-examination of the positive

effects of retention for children with attention problems (1997). Following-up

with 40 of the original participants who had high inattention, he found no

significant academic benefits for the children retained nor did high inattention

scores improve as a result of the extra year in Kindergarten - in fact they were

accompanied by increased behavioural problems. He concluded that the

investigation did

“not support the notion that pre-elementary school retention is a

beneficial educational intervention for children with academic

and/or behaviour difficulties” (p.126).

Ferguson, Jimerson and Dalton (2001) investigated the in-group characteristics of

retained children - for instance, their family background, demographics, parental



value of education and other factors. The researchers tracked the retained

students’ educational achievement from Kindergarten to 11th grade, taking in

standardised test scores, parental surveys, teacher ratings and school records to

test if the retained child’s context has any bearing on educational outcomes.134

Retained children tended to have better educational outcomes when on entering

Kindergarten initially:

Their school readiness scores were higher

They were significantly younger

They were less aggressive

They were more socially adept in kindergarten

They came from families which highly valued education, and

Their mother’s had higher levels of education

Jimerson (1999) discusses the characteristics associated with a child being

retained, noting a number of other studies in the area. Children with

developmental delays and learning disabilities appear more likely to be retained,

as do children who “display more maladaptive behaviours and are less confident,

self-assured, engaging, socially competent, and popular with peers”.135

McLeskey and Grizzle (1992) looked at the rates of children with learning

disabilities who were retained in Indiana, their characteristics and this cohort in

comparison with children with learning disabilities that were not retained.136 Fifty-

eight percent of children were retained prior to being identified as having a

learning disability and it appeared that retention was being used as a remedial

intervention prior a learning disability being identified, though retention often

served only to delay the identification. The retained children were found to have

lower IQ and achievement levels than the children with learning disabilities who

were not retained, and even when IQ was accounted for, also had lower

educational achievement scores.

Dougan and Pijanowski (2011) report that whereas a lot of the ‘redshirting’

research shows positive effects of the child being among the eldest in the class,

these positives are not true of grade retained children. They attribute this to the

134

http://mina.education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/NEW%20retention/Publications/PITS_SuccessfulFailures

2001.pdf


136 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1592080



negative emotional impacts of grade retention on the child which affect school

achievement.137

Jimerson (1999) compared three groups of students over a 21-year longitudinal

study: children who had been retained once between kindergarten and 3rd Grade;

children who were low-achieving but had been promoted each grade (LAP), and a

control group of randomly selected, normally promoted children. Children with

disabilities were excluded from all participant groups. Jimerson found that there

were no difference between the retained and LAP participants on academic

achievement and both groups displayed similar intellectual functioning. However,

retained children showed more behavioural problems in the classroom, missed

more school, were ranked lower in emotional health and had lower peer

acceptance/popularity.

Findings in the longer term indicated that retained students had significantly

lower academic and employment outcomes when compared to LAP participants

and control group. There was much less difference between the LAP participants

and the control group. On many measures they were comparable.

The following key findings were reported:

Greater percentage rates of high school dropout by age 19 (69% compared to

46% LAP)

A lower percentage of high school diploma achievement by age 20 (44%

compared to 72% LAP)

(Although not statistically significant) retained students appeared least likely to

attend post-secondary education than any of the cohorts

Lower employment / education status in late adolescence – least likely to be

working, in education or a combination of both

Earned significantly less per hour than the other groups

Lower work competence ratings

With special regard to grade retention at kindergarten, in a previous study

Jimerson (2001) shows that the notion that a child repeating kindergarten will

increase their academic achievement is not supported by the data.138


138 https://www.cde.state.co.us/sacpie/metaanalysisofgraderetentionresearch



Studies report gains made by retained students may appear in the short term but

tend to taper off over time139140. Shepherd and Smith (1990) discuss the practice

of retaining children in kindergarten in order to prevent future academic failure.

They find no evidence of any academic benefit across sixteen controlled studies,

looking at children from the 1st to 5th grade, when comparing kindergarten-

retained children with those who were sent as usual.

Further, Shepherd and Smith note that children retained in kindergarten had

lower self-concepts and poorer attitudes to school. Parent interviews highlighted

child distress around being teased, seeing their friends progress while they

remained, and a certain wistfulness – the realisation that had they been able, they

would be in a higher grade at that point.141

Hong and Raudenbush (2005) examined the effects of grade retention beyond the

retainees, investigating the effects that a school’s retention policy at the

Kindergarten level has on those retained and those promoted but at-risk, as well

as the average academic outcomes among the wider student group. They

examined data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten cohort

(ECLS-K) which followed 20,000 Kindergarten students across Kindergarten and

1st grade.

They found no evidence that a policy of retaining children at Kindergarten level

made any academic difference to the wider student group. One of the suggested

benefits of retention is that classrooms become more homogenous

environments, allowing for more efficient instruction and consequently, better

academic outcomes. Hong and Raudenbush note that their findings of no

difference among schools with and without retention policies casts doubt that

having a more homogenous group improves instruction. However, increasing

homogeneity may have the unintended consequence of lessening the adaptation

of instruction to suit individual students and their diversity of needs (Shepard and

Smith, 1989).

Hong and Raudenbush did find evidence that children who were retained would

have learned more had they been promoted to the next grade instead and these

effects could be seen in both reading and maths. They calculated that the loss in

academic growth for retained students was equivalent to almost half a year, and

reported that “even for those who tended to be diagnosed as in a relatively

higher need of repeating a grade, there was no evidence that they received any

139 https://www.cde.state.co.us/sacpie/metaanalysisofgraderetentionresearch


141 http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199005_shepard.pdf



immediate benefit from the retention treatment” (2005, pg. 220). Learning

potential is constrained for all but the highest-risk children, however, the

researchers do not define the characteristics of the highest-risk group.

Hong and Yu (2007)142 investigated whether the negative effects of Kindergarten

retention on learning would perpetuate. For those retained in Kindergarten, the

negative effects on reading and maths scores had largely faded by the 5th grade.

However, for those retained in 1st grade, the negative effects remained almost

constant for three years after the retained year.

In a later study, Hong and Yu (2008)143 examined the effects of retention at

Kindergarten level on socio-emotional outcomes as the child moves through

primary school. They found no evidence to suggest that retention had negative

effects on socio-emotional development. On the contrary, their findings suggest

that had the students been promoted to the 1st grade instead of retained, they

would had developed lower levels of self-confidence, and less interest in reading

two years later. Additionally, Hong and Yu found that these students would also

have displayed a higher level of internalising problem behaviours after the

retained year, and two years later.

Children’s voices on retention

The literature documenting children’s attitudes and experiences of retention

again occurs mainly in the American context where promotion/retention is often

intrinsically linked to standardised testing. As such, retention can be used as a

motivator and a threat to ‘keep up’.144 Likewise, the sources noted deal mainly

with Grade 1 retention – when the child has already entered primary school.

Byrnes (1989)145 interviewed retained students in Grades 1, 3 and 6, ‘good’

students and students slated for retention, gathering their experiences and

impressions of grade retention. The study focussed in particular at students in the

lower grades as retention occurs most often in the earlier phases and parents

and teachers see the retention of younger students as less stigmatising.

Byrnes notes that it was evident from the children’s responses that they were

uncomfortable admitting they had been retained, with one student even

recruiting a friend to keep her retention ‘secret’ in the interviews. She found that

43% of girls in Grade 1 who had been retained were reluctant to identify


143 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-02379-010





themselves as being retained to the researchers which she attributes to the

possibility of girls being more aware of the stigma surrounding retention. Byrnes

discusses this reluctance as a reflection of shame.

The children felt that being held back was overwhelmingly negative – 84% of the

responses centred on being “sad”, “bad” or “upset” with others naming

embarrassment. Another participant, fearing others knowing he was retained,

dreaded his birthday and being asked how old he would be. Only 6% of

participants reported positive impressions of being retained but several of these

children also thought that it would have been better to be promoted. Twenty-

one percent of children thought there was ‘nothing good’ about being retained.

When the non-promoted children were asked what the worst thing about not

progressing was, they responded with:

Being laughed at and teased (22%)

Not being with friends (16%)

Being punished (14%)

Being sad (10%)

Getting bad grades (8%)

Being embarrassed (4%)

Doing the same work (4%)

Gleason et al.146 examined the short-term effects of retention in Grade 1 on peer

relations. Sociometric interviews were conducted with classmates of the retained

pupils, asking them about the emotional symptoms, conduct problems, and

academic competencies of their retained classmate as well as their liking for the

child. They found that peer acceptance of retained children increased in the

repeated year

because their younger, less experienced classmates view them as

meeting the day-to-day academic and behavioral challenges better

during their repeat year than their same-age, equally experienced

classmates viewed them the prior year.147

146 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860611/

147 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2860611/



Studies that monitored peer-liking in the longer term would suggest that that

though retained children gained peer-liking in the retained year, this faded in

subsequent years.148

Duration at early years education

The evidence on the effects of longer duration in pre-school is mixed. An earlier

review by the National Disability Authority highlighted the dearth of research on

the subject of pre-school duration for children with disabilities or special

education needs. A number of studies were presented in the review: the Effective

Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE); Barnett and Lamy (2006); Broberg et

al. (1997) and Bagnato et al. (2002).149

The UK’s study ‘Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE)150 found

compelling evidence that a longer duration of attendance at pre-school leads to

better outcomes. These were stronger for academic outcomes than

social/behavioural development and were also found to be stronger when

children attended a high-quality setting. There was a relationship between

attendance at pre-school (as opposed to being kept at home) and higher cognitive

skill attainment. The authors report that

An extended period of pre-school experience has significant

benefits in preparing young children for a better start to school and

that such children continue to show better progress during Key

Stage 1. (p.40)

A subset of the EPPE (Early Years Transitions and Special Education

Needs – EYTSEN) 151study focussed on children ‘at risk’ of special education

needs and included an examination of pre-school practices, policies and

characteristics associated with the progress and development of different at-risk

groups. For children with special education needs, the research supported the

benefits of longer duration at pre-school with “every extra month over two years

of age being associated with better cognitive development” (p.54).

148

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864494/?utm_content=buffer78b6e&utm_mediu

m=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer

149 National Disability Authority (2013) ‘National Disability Authority briefing paper on the

impact of participation for a second year in the Early Childhood Care and Education programme

by children with disabilities’

150 http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10005309/1/sylva2004EPPEfinal.pdf

151 http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10005309/1/sylva2004EPPEfinal.pdf



Barnett and Lamy152 examined the effects of pre-school attendance for one or

two years in New Jersey on measures of vocabulary development, literacy and

maths skills soon after the children entered Kindergarten. Though statistically

significant differences were not found between those who attended for one or

two years on maths and literacy scores, children who had attended pre-school

for two years had significantly more developed vocabulary. In their discussion, the

researchers highlight the importance of vocabulary in providing a fundamental

basis for learning – both for having the language to provide a greater conceptual

basis for learning in general, and for freeing up would-be ‘vocabulary development

time’ to learn something else.

Broberg et al.153 conducted a longitudinal study following 146 children in

Göteborg, Sweden. Children were recruited from waiting lists of public childcare

facilities between 12 and 24 months and followed until they were 101 months

(roughly 8 years old). The children were firstborn (or not living with siblings

under the age of 12), living with parents (married or unmarried) and were not

attending regular day care. They were assessed four times post-recruitment on

verbal abilities, maths abilities and inhibition (particularly focussed on the child’s

inhibition or shyness when with an unfamiliar adult, and the child’s involvement in

a peer-play situation). The research design allowed consideration of time spent in

different pre-school environments up to and just beyond the child’s

commencement in primary school at age seven.

The research aimed to identify aspects of the children’s backgrounds which

impacted their cognitive development. Of the various factors, the type of early

childcare environment was a predictor of development in this regard. The

researchers reported

Children who had spent more months in centre-based day care

before they were 40 months old obtained higher scores on tests of

cognitive ability than did other children. For children who had spent

3 or more preschool years in out-of-home care, quality of

alternative care was also predictive (p.67).

The quality of adult-child interaction predicted children’s verbal abilities while

child-staff ratio, group size and age range (structural measures) predicted

mathematical ability.


153

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Lamb/publication/262140984_Determinents_of_v

erbal_abilities_A_longitudinal_perspective/links/00b495370a92e24f2f000000.pdf



Bagnato et al.154 assessed the first-phased results of the Pittsburgh Early

Childhood Initiative (ECI) which implemented high-quality early years

childcare and education options for children in high-risk neighbourhoods. These

children’s retention (at placement in special education at Kindergarten) ranged

from 18-40% and the average age of children enrolled on the ECI was 3 years

old. Using the Development Observation Checklist System (DOCS),

children were assessed for developmental competency across five main functional

domains: cognitive, language, social, and motor, and overall developmental level.

As all potential participants were enrolled in the ECI, comparison was achieved

by producing the DOCS scores that could be expected through maturation

alone (for example, no intervention) with the observed DOCS scores of the

children. Significant differences between the expected and observed DOCS

scores were reported.

The scores were examined within two cohorts of children participating – a full

high-risk group who were considered at risk in terms of child welfare and

poverty (86%) and those who had a developmental delay155 (14%). Bagnato et al.

noted

During the course of intervention, the full high-risk group

maintained a slightly accelerated, but essentially normal rate of

developmental gain without regressions, whereas the delayed group

progressed at 1.6 months of gain for each month in the intervention

(p.568)

Regarding the duration of time, the researchers state

Our results seem to mirror the conclusions of most other research

in early childhood intervention that underscore the importance of

sustained programming for children at developmental risk. Children

(that is,both with delays and at-risk) who participated in ECI for

the longest periods of time demonstrated the most enhanced

developmental progress during intervention. Moreover, our

154

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/44991881/Child_developmental_impact_of_

Pittsburgh20160422-9699-

1eys2of.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1526486893&Signature

=QAxTw70aA3D%2Bwc0B2vRMLg3cttc%3D&response-content-

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DChild_developmental_impact_of_Pittsburgh.pdf

155 This was defined as children who, at pre-intervention, were 1.5 SD below the average or 25%

below the chronological age in one or more domains of the Pennsylvania Early Education and

Special Education Standards.



descriptive data on early school success show that these same

children beat the historical odds, were promoted, avoided special

education placements, and performed within the average to above

average range on nationally standardized measures of early learning

(p.575)

It should be noted that the EPPE, EYTSEN, Barnett and Lamy, Broberg et al.

and Bagnato et al. studies focussed on duration from an early starting point

(rather than a later end point). Another area of duration research has focussed

on the effects of delaying the end point of Kindergarten.

Karweit and Wasik (1992)156 reviewed educational practices that provided a child

with an extra year at kindergarten. They looked at controlled studies which

compared children who had been retained with children who had been

recommended for retention, but were promoted. They concluded that

kindergarten retention leads to immediate benefits in the year of retention but

that these do not persist past that point. They suggest that the longitudinal

benefits associated with retention are age-related and due to the child being a

year older that classmates.

The researchers also discussed transitional first grade. This is an additional year

between kindergarten and first grade and children who are immature

developmentally, or academically ‘unready’ are often placed in programmes of

this nature. The classes tend to be smaller in size and may have alternative

curricula. The programmes also vary by intent – whether the year is set out to be

a remedial exercise, or an intervention. Karweit and Wasik cited the work of Bell

(1972) who had found that children in these transitional programmes

experienced a significant decline in self-concept and negative impacts on self-

esteem when compared to their counterparts that had been promoted.

More generally, Karweit and Wasik concluded

…across the separate extra-year programs, there is no evidence

that kindergarten retention, developmental kindergarten, or

transitional first grade programs are more effective than simply

promoting children. But this conclusion does not suggest that these

children should simply be promoted in hopes that their problems

will go away… Students who were retained… continue to show

academic difficulties into the elementary grades. They do not, in

short, outgrow their academic problems by buying a year.” (p.10)

156 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED357894.pdf



Shepard (1989) reviewed the literature on a variety of extra-years practices at

Kindergarten – for instance, transitional programmes, straight repetition of the

year, additional years before Kindergarten (pre-K) and additional years after

Kindergarten (transitional 1st grade)157. She found that on measures of self-

concept or attitudes, there did not appear to be any effects of retention.

However, academically, these practices appeared to place children further behind

where they would have been had they been promoted. Where a minority of

studies found positive academic outcomes, they appeared short-lived.

Shepard references a prior review by Gedler (1984) and Leinhardt (1980), both

indicating that the best possible outcomes are achieved when children are

promoted but receive individualised instruction in the regular classroom setting.

Roberts et al.158 examined whether the duration of time in school or

chronological age better predicted working memory. They tested one

thousand,sevn hundred and twenty-seven 6-7 year old children in the second

primary school year in Victoria, Australia on measures of working memory. Even

when controlling for confounding social factors, the evidence suggests that the

amount of time a child has spent in school has more of a positive impact on the

development of children’s verbal and visuospatial working memory than their

chronological age in class.

This was the case among children who had been retained and for children

requiring extra learning assistance.159 As working memory is both a key element

in learning and an area that can be affected by a range of learning disabilities and

mental health conditions (like ADHD), this study would suggest that the duration

of schooling (rather than entry point) is most advantageous to children.

Researchers reached this conclusion based on a study of children across their

second formal year of education. The working memory development curve is

unknown across the first year in school.

Being ‘over-age for grade’

The research on the child being old for their grade is concerned with the effects

of the relative age differential of chronological versus peer age.

Roderick (1994) studied the transcripts of 1,052 high schoolers in Massachusetts

to investigate if the high drop-out rates of students who had repeated a grade

between Kindergarten and 6th Grade were related to the student being ‘over-age


158 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/61e4/7033e1d6061d445639283b8a3eae9dfd2777.pdf

159 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/61e4/7033e1d6061d445639283b8a3eae9dfd2777.pdf



for grade’.160 Of her sample, 36.49% of students had been retained for one or

more years (mainly in the 1st or 7th grade) and of these students, the drop-out

rate between the ages of 16 and 19 was 79.84%. This drop-out rate compared to

27.39% of promoted students.

Sixty-one students studied had not repeated a year but had begun school at a

later age and thus were older than their grade cohort. Among this group 58%

later dropped out of school. Roderick used these cases to estimate the age-

related effects of drop-out risks. Controlling for age she re-examined the

relationship between retention and the hazard of dropping out. Roderick

concluded that

These results suggest that the association between grade retention

and the hazard of school leaving that is not explained by school

performance through the sixth grade can be explained by an effect

of being overage for grade (p.743).

Part of this result can be explained by the fact that students who

were overage for grade in the sixth grade would experience

substantial disengagement during middle school. They would be

much more likely to become middle school dropouts and, among

those who remained, would show substantial declines in attendance

by the eighth grade. It appears, therefore, that a grade retention

may influence a student's school performance at the time that

retention occurs and, later, when that student is 14 or 15 and is

sitting in a class of 13-year-olds (p.748).

Byrd et al.161 studied drug usage among children who were old for their grade. Of

1,396 participants, 36% were over-age for grade. Controlling for confounding

variables, the researchers found that these older students were more likely to

report a range of substance-use and risky behaviours, for instance,

Using alcohol

Using tobacco

Driving in a car with someone who had been drinking

Using alcohol or other drugs before their last experience of sexual

intercourse

Using cocaine in the past month


161 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/517935?redirect=true



Having ever used crack cocaine

Using injected or other illicit drugs

Jimerson and Renshaw162 describe adolescents who had been retained as

more independent, less likely to have close parental supervision

over their homework and social experiences, more easily in a

position to skip school, and more likely to have greater access to

negative influences in the community and online (p.13).

162

https://www.averyschools.net/cms/lib/NC01000809/Centricity/Domain/21/Synthesis%20of%20re

tention%20research.pdf



References

AIM (2017) Budget 2018 changes in relation to the ECCE programme.

Available at: http://aim.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ecce-eligibility.pdf

AIM (2018) For Parents. Available at: http://aim.gov.ie/for-parents/

AIM (2018) What supports are provided under AIM? Available at:

http://aim.gov.ie/

Bagnato, S. et al. (2002) Child developmental impact of Pittsburgh’s Early

Childhood Initiative (ECI) in high-risk communities: first-phase authentic

evaluation research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 559-580.

Balitewicz, Thomas F. (1998). The Long-Term Effects of Grade Retention.

ERIC Document No. 424 616. Available at:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED424616.pdf

Barnard-Brak, L. (2008) ‘Academic red-shirting among children with

learning disabilities’, Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, Vol. 6 (2),

pp. 43-54.

Barnard-Brak, L., Stevens, T. and Albright, E. (2015) Academic red-shirting and

academic achievement among students with ADHD. Contemporary

Education Psychology, 50, 4-12.

Barnett, W.S. (1998) Long-term cognitive and academic effects of early childhood

education on children in poverty. Preventative Medicine, 27(2), 204-7.

Barnett, W.S. and Lamy, C.E. (2006) Estimated Impacts of Number of

Years of Preschool Attendance on Vocabulary, Literacy and Math Skills

at Kindergarten Entry – NIEER Working Paper. Available at:

http://nieer.org/research-report/estimated-impacts-of-number-of-years-of-

preschool-attendance-on-vocabulary-literacy-and-math-skills-at-kindergarten-

entry

Bedard, K. and Dhuey, E. (2006) The Persistence of Early Childhood Maturity:

International Evidence of Long-Run Age Effects. The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 121(4), 1437-1472.

Broberg, A., Hwang, P. and Lamb, M.E. (1994) Determinants of verbal abilities: A

longitudinal perspective. The International Society for the Study of

Behavioral Development (ISSBD). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

http://aim.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ecce-eligibility.pdf

http://aim.gov.ie/for-parents/

http://aim.gov.ie/


http://nieer.org/research-report/estimated-impacts-of-number-of-years-of-preschool-attendance-on-vocabulary-literacy-and-math-skills-at-kindergarten-entry





Byrd, R.S., Weitzman, M. and Doniger, A.S. (1996) Increased Drug Use Among

Old-for-Grade Adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent

Medicine, 150(5), 470-476.

Byrnes, D.A. (1989) ‘Attitudes of Students, Parents and Educators toward

Repeating a Grade’ in Shepard, L.A. & Smith, M.L. (Eds.) (1989) Flunking

Grades: Research and Policies on Retention. London: Falmer Press.

Cobley, S., McKenna, J., Baker, J., and Wattie, N. (2009). How pervasive are

relative age effects in secondary school education? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 101(2), 520-528.

Cooley Fruehwirth, J., Navarroz, S. and Takahashi, Y. (2014) How The Timing of

Grade Retention Affects Outcomes: Identification and Estimation of Time-Varying

Treatment Effects. Available at: http://www.unc.edu/~joubertc/CooleySeminar.pdf

Datar, A. (2006). Does delaying kindergarten entrance give children a head start?

Economics of Education Review, 25(1), 43-62.

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2012) ECCE Service Guide.

Available at:

https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/childcare/eccesept2012/ECCE_Service_Guide

.pdf

Department of Education and Science (2003) Retention of Pupils in Same

Grade in Primary School. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Primary Circular

32/03. Available at: https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-

Circulars/pc32_03.pdf

Department of Education and Skills (2017) Síolta – User Manual. Dublin: Early

Years Education Policy Unit. Available at: http://siolta.ie/media/pdfs/siolta-manual-

2017.pdf

Dhuey, E. and Lipscomb, S. (2008) What Makes a Leader? Relative Age and High

School Leadership. Economics of Education Review, 27(2) April, 173-183.

Dougan, K. and Pijanowski, J. (2011) The Effects of Academic Redshirting and

Relative Age on Student Achievement. International Journal of Educational

Leadership Preparation, 6(2) Apr-Jun, 1-13.

ECS (2014) Kindergarten Entrance Assessments: 50-State Comparison.

Denver: Education Commission of the States. Available at:

http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestRT?rep=Kq1407

http://www.unc.edu/~joubertc/CooleySeminar.pdf

https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/childcare/eccesept2012/ECCE_Service_Guide.pdf

https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/childcare/eccesept2012/ECCE_Service_Guide.pdf

https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/pc32_03.pdf

https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/pc32_03.pdf



http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestRT?rep=Kq1407



Elder, T.E. and Lubotsky, D.H. (2009) Kindergarten Entrance Age and Children’s

Achievement: Impacts of State Policies, Family Background, and Peers. Journal of

Human Resources, 44(3) Summer, 641-683.

European Parliamentary Research Service (2016) Early childhood education

and care in family-friendly policies. Brussels: European Parliament. Available

at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/582008/EPRS_BRI(201

6)582008_EN.pdf

Ferguson, P., Jimerson, S.R. and Dalton, M.J. (2001) Sorting Out Successful

Failures: Exploratory Analyses of Factors Associated with Academic and

Behavioral Outcomes of Retained Students. Psychology in the Schools, 38(4),

327–341.

Fortner, C.K. and Jenkins, J.M. (2017) Kindergarten redshirting: Motivations and

spillovers using census-level data. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

38(1), 44-56.

Fortner, C.K. and Jenkins, J.M. (2018) Is delayed school entry harmful for children

with disabilities? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44(3), 170-180.

Fowler, S.A., Schwartz, I. and Atwater, J. (1991) Perspectives on the Transition

from Preschool to Kindergarten for Children with Disabilities and Their Families.

Exceptional Children, 58(2), 136-145.

Gleason, K.A., Kwok, O. and Hughes, J.N. (2007) The Short-Term Effect of

Grade Retention on Peer Relations and Academic Performance of At-Risk First

Graders. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 327–340.

Government of the United States of America (2002) No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.

Graue, M.E. and DiPerna, J. (2000) Redshirting and Early Retention: Who Gets

the "Gift of Time" and What Are Its Outcomes? American Educational

Research Journal, 37(2), 509-534.

Haynes, S.E. (2007) Principal and Teacher Beliefs Regarding Grade

Retention: A Case Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Available at:

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/4681/research.pdf?s

equence=3

Holmes, C.T. and Matthews, K.M. (1984) The Effects of Non promotion on

Elementary and Junior High School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis. Review of

Educational Research, 54(2), 225–236.



https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/4681/research.pdf?sequence=3

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/4681/research.pdf?sequence=3



Holmes, C.T. (1989) ‘Grade Level Retention Effects: A Meta-Analysis of Research

Studies’ in Shepard, L.A. and Smith, M.L. (Eds.) (1989) Flunking Grades:

Research and Policies on Retention. London: Falmer Press.

Hong, G. and Raudenbush, S.W. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy

on children's cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(3), 205-224.

Hong G. and Yu, B. (2007) Early-Grade Retention and Children’s Reading and

Math Learning in Elementary Years. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 29(4), 239–261.

Hong, G. and Yu, B. (2008) Effects of kindergarten retention on children's social-

emotional development: An application of propensity score method to

multivariate, multilevel data. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 407-421.

Karweit, N.L. and Wasik, B.A. (1992) A Review of the Effects of Extra-Year

Kindergarten Programs and Transitional First Grades. Center for Research on

Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Report No. 41. Available

at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED357894.pdf

Janus, M., Lefort, J., Cameron, R. & Kopechanski, L. (2007) Starting Kindergarten:

Transition Issues for Children with Special Needs. Canadian Journal of

Education, 30(3), 628‐648.

Jimerson, S.R. (1999) On the Failure of Failure: Examining the Association

Between Early Grade Retention and Education and Employment Outcomes

During Late Adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37(3), 243–272.

Jimerson, S.R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for

practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420-437.

Jimerson, S.R. and Renshaw, T.L. (2012) Retention and Social Promotion.

Principal Leadership, Summer, 12-16.

Mantzicopoulos, P.Y. (1997) Do Certain Groups of Children Profit from Early

Retention? A Follow-Up Study of Kindergartners with Attention Problems.

Psychology in the Schools, 34(2), 115–127.

Mantzicopoulos, P.Y. and Morrison, D.C. (1992) Kindergarten Retention:

Academic and Behavioral Outcomes Through the End of Second Grade.

American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 182–198.




Martin, A.J. (2009). Age appropriateness and motivation, engagement, and

performance in high school: Effects of age within cohort, grade retention, and

delayed school entry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 101-114.

McCleskey and Grizzle (1992) Grade retention rates among students with

learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(6), 548-54.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2009) Aistear: the Early

Childhood Curriculum Framework. Dublin: National Council for

Curriculum and Assessment. Available at:

http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Aistear/Introduction-to-Aistear-Principles-and-

Themes.pdf

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2015) Aistear Siolta

Practice Guide. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Available at: http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/About/Full-Print-Version/Full-Print-Version-

of-Aistear-S-olta-Practice-Guide.pdf

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2015) Aistear Siolta

Practice Guide: Supporting Transitions. Dublin: National Council for

Curriculum and Assessment. Available at:


National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2015) Primary Language

Curriculum. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills. Available at:

https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/524b871d-1e20-461f-a28c-

bbca5424112d/Primary-Language-Curriculum_1.pdf

NCES (1997) The Elementary School Performance and Adjustment of

Children Who Enter Kindergarten Late or Repeat Kindergarten:

Findings from National Surveys. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98097.pdf

NDA (2013) National Disability Authority briefing paper on the impact

of participation for a second year in the Early Childhood Care and

Education scheme by children with disabilities. Dublin: NDA.

Noel, A.M. and Newman, J. (2003) Why Delay Kindergarten Entry? A

Qualitative Study of Mothers' Decisions. Early Education and Development,

14(4), 479-198.

Range, B., Dougan, K. and Pijanowski, J. (2011) Rethinking Grade Retention and

Academic Redshirting: Helping School Administrators Make Sense of What

http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Aistear/Introduction-to-Aistear-Principles-and-Themes.pdf

http://aistearsiolta.ie/en/Aistear/Introduction-to-Aistear-Principles-and-Themes.pdf




https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/524b871d-1e20-461f-a28c-bbca5424112d/Primary-Language-Curriculum_1.pdf

https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/524b871d-1e20-461f-a28c-bbca5424112d/Primary-Language-Curriculum_1.pdf

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98097.pdf



Works. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,

6(1) Jan-Mar, 1-13. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973825.pdf

Range, B., Davenport Yonke, D.A. and Young, S. (2011) Preservice Teacher

Beliefs about Retention: How do They Know What They Don’t Know? Journal

of Research in Education, 21(2), 77-99.

Ring, E., Mhic Mhathúna, M., Moloney, M., Hayes, N., Breathnach, D., Stafford, P.,

Carswell, D., Keegan, S., Kelleher, C., McCafferty, D., O’Keeffe, A., Leavy, A.,

Madden, R. and Ozonyia, M. (2016) An examination of concepts of school

readiness among parents and educators in Ireland. Dublin: Department of

Children and Youth Affairs. Available at: www.dcya.ie

Ring, E. and O’Sullivan, L. (2017) Only four parents mentioned ‘play’: Implications

from a national school readiness study in Ireland for children’s learning in the

early years of primary school. Learn, 39, 51-59.

Roberts, G. et al. (2015) Schooling Duration Rather Than Chronological Age

Predicts Working Memory Between 6 and 7 Years: Memory Maestros Study.

Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 36, 68-74.

Roderick, M. (1994) Grade Retention and School Dropout: Investigating the

Association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729–759.

Shepard, L.A. (1989)’A Review of Research on Kindergarten Retention’ in

Shepard, L.A. and Smith, M.L. (Eds.) (1989) Flunking Grades: Research and

Policies on Retention. London: Falmer Press.

Shepard, L.A. and Smith, M.L. (1990) Synthesis of Research on Grade Retention.

Educational Leadership, 47(8), 84–88.

Skrysak, S. (N.D.) Do I Send My Child To Kindergarten or Wait One More Year?

Her View from Home. Available at: https://herviewfromhome.com/do-i-send-

my-child-to-kindergarten-or-wait-one-more-year/

Stirling Council (N.D.) Research in Relation to Deferring Entry to School.

Available at: https://www.stirling.gov.uk/__documents/education-and-

learning/enrolment/deferredentryresearch.pdf

Sylva, K. et al. (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education

(EPPE) Project: Final Report. Nottingham: Department for Education and

Skills. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10005309/1/sylva2004EPPEfinal.pdf

Triona (2017) Making big decisions as parents – is our child ready for

school? A Little Londoner, 12 January. Available at:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973825.pdf

http://www.dcya.ie/

https://herviewfromhome.com/do-i-send-my-child-to-kindergarten-or-wait-one-more-year/

https://herviewfromhome.com/do-i-send-my-child-to-kindergarten-or-wait-one-more-year/

https://www.stirling.gov.uk/__documents/education-and-learning/enrolment/deferredentryresearch.pdf

https://www.stirling.gov.uk/__documents/education-and-learning/enrolment/deferredentryresearch.pdf

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10005309/1/sylva2004EPPEfinal.pdf



http://www.alittlelondoner.com/making-big-decisions-as-parents-is-our-child-

ready-for-school/#.WxfbPNIzXGi

Van Belle, J. (2016) Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and its

long-term effects on educational and labour market outcomes.

Cambridge: Rand Corporation. Available at:


Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M. and Verma, M. (2012) The importance

of play. Brussels: Toy Industries of Europe. Available at:

http://www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/dr_david_whitebread_-


Wildenger, L.K. (2011) The Transition to Kindergarten: Impact of

Transition Preparation on Socio-Behavioral Outcomes for Children

with and without Disabilities. New York: Syracuse University. Available at:

https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.ie/url?sa=tr

ct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZwtrny4rb

AhVK46QKHWr0CBgQFghBMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsurface.syr.edu%2Fcgi%

2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1165%26context%3Dpsy_etd&usg=AOvVaw0H

K8is1ymsmmSE8mb9_kPt&httpsredir=1&article=1165&context=psy_etd

Winter, S.M. and Kelley, M.F. (2008) Forty Years of School Readiness Research:

What Have We Learned? Childhood Education, 84(5), 260-266.

Witmer, S.M., Hoffman, L.M. and Nottis, K.E. (2004) Elementary teachers'

beliefs and knowledge about grade retention: how do we know what

they know? Education, 125(2), 173-194.

Wu, W., West, S.G. and Hughes, J.N. (2008) Short-Term Effects of Grade

Retention on the Growth Rate of Woodcock-Johnson III Broad Math and

Reading Scores. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 85–105.

Xia, N. and Nataraj Kirby, Z. (2009) Retaining Students in Grade: A

Literature Review of the Effects of Retention on Students’ Academic

and Nonacademic Outcomes. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Available at:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR

678.pdf

http://www.alittlelondoner.com/making-big-decisions-as-parents-is-our-child-ready-for-school/#.WxfbPNIzXGi

http://www.alittlelondoner.com/making-big-decisions-as-parents-is-our-child-ready-for-school/#.WxfbPNIzXGi


http://www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/dr_david_whitebread_-_the_importance_of_play.pdf

http://www.importanceofplay.eu/IMG/pdf/dr_david_whitebread_-_the_importance_of_play.pdf






https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR678.pdf

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR678.pdf



Appendix 4 – Open policy debate

Introduction

The Open Policy Debate, hosted by the Departments of Children and Youth

Affairs and Education and Science, was held on 28 May 2018 in the Mansion

House, Dublin, to explore the issues and possible solutions to the proposed

changes to overage exemptions within the Early Childhood Care and

Education scheme.

The Open Policy Debate formed part of a wider review of the matter undertaken

by the National Disability Authority. The event brought together parents,

practitioners in the Early Years Sector,education sector, HSE clinicians working

with young children, relevant statutory agencies and organisations involved in the

delivery of the Early Childhood Care and Education programme and with

expertise on children and families who had availed of the exemption in the past.

A Background Paper and Agenda were issued in advance of the Open Policy

Debate (see Appendix 4.1). The meeting was addressed by Ms Katherine

Zappone TD, Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. The process on the day

involved short inputs from experts, discussion in small, mixed groups, feedback to

plenary sessions, and a final plenary discussion.

The open policy debate

Chapter 8 of this report provides a summary of the priorities which were

identified during the Open Policy Debate. Throughout the event there was

considerable consistency in the issues identified as requiring attention. As the

Early Childhood Care and Education programme itself develops, and there

is positive and planned transition of children from pre- to primary school as

standard practice, then it was anticipated that the need for Early Childhood

Care and Education overage exemptions would reduce.

Overall, the outcome of the Debate suggests that Early Childhood Care and

Education overage exemptions are symptomatic, rather than, central and that

the priority is to tackle systemic issues, dealing with a range of issues in parallel.

As the systemic issues are addressed then the demand for exemptions are

expected to reduce. Some of the issues identified are already the subject of

attention by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the Department of

Education and Skills, and other Agencies, as the Background Paper sets out, and

there will undoubtedly be improvements on different fronts in the months and

years to come.



However, for parents and many others attending the Debate, and for those with

children with special/additional needs making choices now and in the short term,

medium-term changes are viewed as of little advantage. The windows of

opportunity for the individual child is small and if missed there are life-long

consequences.

It is important to note that the participants in the Debate were generally positive

about the Early Childhood Care and Education programme which has been

in place since 2010. They recognised that this is a relatively short period in which

to establish a national intervention, acknowledging that it is already making a

difference to children, including, those with special/additional needs, and that it is

still a programme in development.

In an evolving situation where there is ambition across Government to realise an

Early Years provision that is of a high standard, the challenge is how best to

introduce the changes with the maximum benefit and the least disruption, as

systems gear up to the standards required. Further, the changes happening in

both the pre- and primary school systems demands strong collaboration between

the two Government Departments, the Department of Children and Youth

Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills, if the changes are to be well

planned and executed without gaps or inconsistencies

The detailed notes contained in Appendix 4.2 record observations, ideas and

proposed solutions from small group discussions at the Open Policy Debate.



Appendix 4.1

Background Paper and Open Policy Debate Agenda

Department of Children and Youth Affairs

and

Department of Education and Skills

Open Policy Debate

Future options for the Early Childhood Care

and Education (ECCE) overage exemptions

Monday, 28th May 2018

Mansion House Roundroom,

Dawson Street, Dublin

Background Paper



Introduction/Context

The Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme is a universal

programme available to all children within the eligible age range. It provides

children with their first formal experience of early learning prior to commencing

primary school. The programme is provided for three hours per day, five days per

week and the programme year runs from September to June each year. From

September 2018 children will be eligible for 2 full years of ECCE (when introduced

ECCE was available for 1 year – 38 weeks. In 2016/17 this was expanded to 61

weeks on average). Childcare services taking part in the ECCE scheme must

provide an appropriate pre-school educational programme which adheres to the

principles of Síolta, the national framework for early years care and education.

Under the rules of ECCE there is a requirement that children availing of the

scheme must finish on or before reaching the age of 5 years and 6 months. In order

for a child to finish later than this age the parents/guardians must apply to the

Department of Children and Youth Affairs for an exemption commonly referred

to as an overage exemption.

Overage exemptions were introduced at the onset of the ECCE programme in

2010. Approximately 500 children have availed of the overage exemption each year

since then. In 2010 the ECCE Programme only operated for a 38 week period, or

one programme year. For some children with special or additional needs, attending

preschool five days a week was not feasible and so an allowance was made to

enable them split their ECCE provision over 2 years. For example, a child may

have availed of 3 days ECCE provision in year one and 2 days in year two. Their

total ECCE provision remained at 38 weeks. This practice of splitting ECCE

attendance continued after the expansion of the ECCE programme to 61 weeks

in 2016.

This flexibility was never intended to conflict with the legislative requirement to

start school by age six. The law and policy on school start-age is clearly established

in Ireland. Children should be in school by the time they are six. The primary school

system has a variety of resources to support children with disabilities commence

school with their peers.

If children are not in school by six, under the Educational Welfare Act, the

Educational Welfare service of Tusla must be satisfied that the child is receiving a

minimum standard of education in a place other than at a recognised school. (Tusla

does this by sending Educational Welfare Inspectors out to the place of the child's

education after they have been notified by the parent of the child’s situation)



Changes to ECCE scheme from September 2018

From September 2018, all children meeting the minimum age requirement of 2

years and 8 months will be eligible for a full two programme years ECCE. The

upper age ECCE requirement is that the child must not reach 5 years and 6

months before the end of the programme year.

This extension of ECCE from September 2018 refines the development

introduced in 2016, whereby three intake dates were adopted (September, January

and April), and will increase the duration of each registered child on ECCE from

a current average of 61 weeks, to an entitlement to 76 weeks (two programme

years). This enhancement delivers fully on a commitment in the Programme for

a Partnership Government.

This new measure will also address the situation where there was a wide range in

the number of preschool weeks a child could avail of – between 61 and 88 weeks

(depending on date of birth) – and will ensure a programme that is more equitable

for all children.

The number of entry points will revert to one at the beginning of the new

programme year (September, 2018). One enrolment period at the start of the pre-

school year will support quality service provision principally by making it easier for

services to provide continuity of staffing through the programme year. The single

enrolment will also help streamline the administration process and will make it

easier for childcare providers to operate and budget for the programme year. This

will also make it easier for parents to secure ECCE places for their children.

Access Inclusion Model (AIM)

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs has worked to improve the pre-

school experience for children with disabilities and to optimise their early

development. The Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) was introduced in 2016.

It offers 7 different levels of progressive support ranging from universal (1-3) to

targeted (4-7) for children with disabilities. Over 5,000 children have so far

benefitted from targeted supports and many multiples of this from universal

supports.



The Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) seeks to ensure that children with a

disability can access ECCE. Its goal is to support early years providers to deliver

an inclusive pre-school experience. AIM is a child-centred and evidence-based

model providing supports based on the needs and strengths of the child and the

early years setting. Supports provided under AIM include:

The development of an inclusive culture

Enhanced continuing professional development for early years practitioners

The provision of equipment, appliances and grants for minor alterations

Access to therapeutic intervention

Increased capitation for early years providers in the case of children with very

complex needs

The child must qualify on age grounds for the ECCE programme and the early

years provider must be registered with Tusla and hold an active Department of

Children and Youth Affairs contract to deliver the ECCE programme. The only

exception to this is where the child qualifies for the ECCE programme but is

availing of early childhood care and education services funded under another

Department of Children and Youth Affairs childcare programme such as the

Community Childcare Subvention (CCS) or Training and Education Childcare

(TEC) programmes.

Better Start

Better Start is an initiative of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, in

collaboration with the Department of Education and Skills and Pobal. The broader



aim of Better Start is to bring coordination, cohesion and consistency to the

provision of state funded quality supports and to work in alignment with statutory

systems, that is. regulation and inspection, in the Early Childhood Care and

Education sector.

Better Start comprises three pillars: the City and County Childcare Committees,

the National Voluntary Childcare Organisations and the National Early Years

Quality Development Service.

Under the Access and Inclusion Model, it also provides expert advice,

mentoring and support to providers and practitioners from specialists in early years

care and education for children with disabilities.

Department of Education and Skills supports in primary school

for children with special education need (SEN)

The Government is committed to ensuring that all children, including those with

learning disabilities and/or mental health issues, can have access to an education

appropriate to their needs, preferably in school settings through the primary and

post primary school network.

The Department of Education and Skills provides for a continuum of special

education provision to be made available, so that regardless of the level of need of

the child, educational provision can be made for them.

The policy of the Department of Education and Skills is that children should be

included in mainstream placements with additional supports provided where

necessary. The extent of supports required for any child in a particular class setting

or school will depend on their individual learning needs and the extent of care

needs that they may have. In circumstances where children with special

educational needs cannot be accommodated in mainstream education, they may be

enrolled in special classes or special schools where more intensive and supportive

interventions are provided.

Funding for special education provision in 2018 amounts to some €1.75 billion

and includes the provision for supports, such as:

Over thirteen thousand four hundred Special Education Teaching posts in

mainstream primary and post primary schools for the 2017/2018 school year,

to provide additional teaching support to pupils with special educational

needs

Fifteen thousand Special Needs Assistants (SNAs) which will be available for

allocation to primary, post primary and special schools for the new school



year, this is one thousand and ten more posts, or a 7% increase, in the

number of posts which were available last year

Over one thousand one hundred teachers in one hundred and twenty-five

special schools, including education provision in Hospital schools and HSE

Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) Units

Approximately one thousand four hundred and forty special classes, which

includes one hundred and forty new special classes to be opened in

September 2018. This compares to five hundred and forty-eight special classes

in 2011, an increase of 162%

Enhanced capitation grants for special schools and special classes attached to

mainstream schools

Teacher training and continuing professional development in the area of

special education through the Special Education Support Service (SESS)

Special school transport arrangements

Assistive technology/Specialised equipment

Special Arrangements for State Examinations

A new Special Education Teaching allocation process was introduced in September

2017. The revised allocation process replaces the generalised allocation process at

primary and post primary school level for learning support and high incidence

special educational needs, and the National Council for Special Education (NCSE)

allocation process which provided additional resource teaching supports to

schools, to support pupils assessed as having Low Incidence disabilities.

The new Special Education Teaching allocation provides a single unified allocation

for special educational support teaching needs to each school, based on each

school’s educational profile.

Under the new allocation model, schools are provided with a total allocation for

special education needs support based on their school profile.

The provision of a profiled allocation is designed to give a fairer allocation for each

school,which recognises that all schools need an allocation for special needs

support, but which provides a graduated allocation which takes into account the

actual level of need in each school.



Changes to overage exemptions and subsequent pause

In December 2017 a decision was taken by the Department of Children and

Youth Affairs, (with the agreement of the Department of Education and Skills) to

cease the system of overage exemptions in ECCE from September 2018. The

intention behind this decision was to support the achievement of better

outcomes for children with disabilities. This was based on evidence that children

with a disability benefit from starting school with their peers once they have

access to high-quality and inclusive primary school education. Likewise, they

benefit from becoming teenagers with their peers and transitioning to secondary

school with them.

The decision was also taken in the context of, and in conjunction with, the

introduction of a full two years of ECCE provision with effect from September

2018, and the introduction of AIM supports. In effect, the view taken at the time

was that availability of a full second year of ECCE and the AIM supports in place

significantly exceeded the provision available through the granting of the overage

exemption as introduced at the outset of the ECCE programme in 2010.

The decision, which was intended to represent the best interests of children, and

which was taken for no other reason, was signalled a year in advance. The

decision was made in close collaboration with members of the AIM cross-

sectoral implementation group, including representatives from the National

Council for Special Education (NCSE), the National Disability Authority, the HSE,

representatives of parents of children with special needs and a representative of

early years providers.

There was broad agreement that, in light of the developments in free preschool

education and the supports in place for children in primary schools, the over-

age exemption would no longer support the policy aim that children should

transition to primary school with their peers. The decision acknowledged the

supports provided by the relevant primary school, the NCSE and other bodies, as

required. However, it is now acknowledged that the communication of the

rationale for the decision was lacking and that further consultation with parents

was required. To this end, the Minister of Children and Youth Affairs paused the

proposed change to allow for a wider consultation with parents of children with

disabilities and special needs.


This consultation process, which is being led jointly by the Department of Children

and Youth Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills, with the assistance

of the National Disability Authority, involves a number of steps, some of which

have been completed, including:



Review of relevant literature and policy

Review of existing data on overage exemptions, including trends in

applications and approvals

Profile of children currently in receipt of overage exemptions

Review of existing data and trends in school starting age

Identification of options for managing exemptions going forward (including

the criteria and application, appraisal and appeals processes) and

consideration of the impact of each option identified for:

Children and families

Pre-schools and schools (including practitioners and teachers)

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs (and its respective

Agencies, policies and programmes)

The Department of Education and Skills (and its respective Agencies,

policies and programmes). This step will be led by the Department of

Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills

Development, testing and issuing of a series of questions for parents of

children with disabilities and preparation of a report on the results

Identification of key stakeholders (including parents) for consultation

Facilitation of an Open Policy Debate with these stakeholders in conjunction

with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of

Education and Skills.

Next steps

The National Disability Authority will compile a report of the evidence, the findings

of the survey, and findings of the Open Policy Debate for consideration by both

Departments by end June 2018.

Following receipt of this report, the two Departments will consider the outcome

and prepare policy proposals for the two Ministers.

Both Departments are very grateful to the National Disability Authority (for its

assistance in managing this process.



Department of Children and Youth Affairs and Department of

Education and Skills

Open Policy Debate

Future options for Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)

overage exemptions

Monday, 28th May 2018

Mansion House Roundroom, Dawson Street, Dublin 2

Morning session

09.30 Registration Department of Children and

Youth Affairs Staff

10.00 Welcome/Housekeeping

Chair

10.10 Opening address Minister Zappone

10.20 Intro to context presentations

Chair

10.25 Presentation – NDA Siobhan Barron

10.35 Presentation - AIM Toby Wolfe

10.45 Presentation - Department of

Education and Skills

Jim Mulkerrins

10.55 Introduction to first group session

Caroline McCamley

11.00 Table discussion

12.00 Table discussion feedback

12.30 Lunch



Afternoon Session

1.30 Introduction to afternoon session

Chair

1.35 Introduction to second group

discussion

Caroline McCamley

1.40 Table discussion

2.45 – Table discussion feedback

3.15 – Panel reflections on consultation

3.35 – Final brief open discussion

3.50–

4:00

Closing remarks



Appendix 4.2: Reports from table discussions

Reports from table discussions

The discussions during the Open Policy Debate took place at mixed participant

tables, with semi-structured questions to initiate the discussion. Each group

reported a summary of the key topics and points discussed and the priorities,

together with ideas and solutions to many of the issues raised.

Morning session

Topic: What are the pros and cons of the system of overage exemption?

• What were the pros and cons of the system when ECCE provision was 1

year?

• Have these changed now that standard ECCE provision is 2 years, with

AIM supports available?

• Are there consequences of having a wide age range in an early years

setting?

• Are the criteria for applying correct and is this system working?

• What are the downstream effects, if any, of exemptions (that is. when the

children progress through the education system, primary and secondary)?

• Are transition mechanisms adequate?

Afternoon session

Topic: Having regard to the need for age rules in the ECCE scheme and the

legal requirement to be in school by age 6, and taking the two programme years

of ECCE provision as a given, what is the optimum structure in ECCE to

address the range of issues identified in the morning?

• Three example models are being displayed to inform the conversation

These are not intended as proposals and other variations / models are

welcome, which tables may fill in at ‘Model D’. (See Appendix 4.3)

• How beneficial is it for children to progress through the education system

with peers or are there any downsides?

• What, if any, changes are required to the transition process to facilitate

supporting parents in their choices?

• How do we best deal with children whose additional needs arise after

starting in ECCE?

• What messaging needs to take place with parents, early years practitioners

and other stakeholders in order to increase awareness of all scheme

details?



Table 1

Facilitator Caroline McCamley

Note taker Deirdre Hanratty

Morning session

Current System: Positives

Makes early years affordable

Children can start journey into lifelong learning

Positive for children with additional needs

Continuity of Aistear programme

Can identify needs earlier

Link between early years and primary school

The fact that it’s a universal programme

Extra year in pre-school more inclusive

Inclusion

Holistic and strength-based

Interagency work happening more

Practitioners feeling more supported

Current System: Negatives

Great links with some pre-schools – not all

Pre-schools that are known to be inclusive get overwhelmed

ECCE session of three hours is too short

Some pre-schools turn away parents of children with special needs

Training needed to help pre-schools be more inclusive

Training is outside of work hours

Training hubs required

Training less available in rural areas

Early Starts don’t have AIM supports

Equal access to Early Start is required (that is, AIM supports will allow this)

If child is refused a place in a pre-school there is no legislation to support that

family in getting a place



Children should be able to access their local pre-school

Inclusivity and parents

Lack of knowledge on AIM

Should be mandatory training for managers

Some managers don’t want to become employers and employ staff (as they

would have to if child had Level 7 AIM supports)

Overage exemptions

ECCE upper age should bring child up to 6 years

Some children with additional needs can only attend ECCE part-time (due to

attending Cheeverstown or other services) presenting a difficulty for services

in offering shared places

September – December children are too young going into primary school

Children now starting school later

Some primary schools have a minimum starting age leaving some children with

no place after completing pre-school

Misunderstanding on what play-based learning is

Good transitions happen when primary school teachers visit child’s pre-

school

Early Intervention Team only goes up to 5 years and therefore the child is

losing out

Continuity of child’s care team is required through to primary school

Should be an overlap when the child transitions to primary school – for

example, keep the same care team (Early Intervention Team) until the

Christmas after the child begins primary school

Continuity of supports

More joined-up thinking required

Consequences of overage exemptions

Supports are stopped for children once they turn 18 years of age and they

might still be in school by then

Some parents might find difficulty getting a school place after holding their

child back

Are better resources required in schools to reduce fear of transitioning?

Should have passports for primary schools



Some children who move here from other countries (where school start age

is 7) are then placed in junior infants at that age

Criteria for overage exemptions

Assessments have a cost

Overage exemption could be linked to AIM profile

Can ECCE year be split over two years? For example, 2 days for 1 year and 3

days for the next

Priority issues from the table

Inconsistencies in how it’s set up

System should be flexible in terms of when the child moves on to primary

school

Links between pre-school and primary school should be set up

Training

Supports continuing from pre-school through to primary school

Increase knowledge of AIM

Aistear

Importance of transition to primary school

Afternoon session

Issues and solutions, or options suggested

AIM versus SNA

Using AIM person for transition into primary school

Wording needs to change

One to one model has evolved

Pre-school support/classroom assistant

System should be consistent right through

SNA is one part of support plan

Pre-school support is for one child versus AIM model for all children

SNA there to look after child’s care need

Age of 6

Child should be allowed continue pre-school if they turn 6 during that year



Should be a two year lead-in before transition (August to December born

children)

2 years 8 months age is low

Transition to school

Communication should be structured between clinician/Special Educational

Needs Organiser

Plan could be in place by child’s second year of pre-school

AIM transition plan

Home-school liaison officers visit some pre-schools in January before child

begins primary school

Psychologist reports can be vague

“Special Education Needs” term

“Diversity” is a more inclusive term

Additional support worker in junior infants

Allocation of resources in primary school

Aistear

Application of Aistear should be more consistent and integrated

Flexibility of curriculum so it can be adapted for the group

Early Start programme

Anomaly

AIM supports needed

Enrolment policies inconsistent

Training and capacity building

Learning and development

In-service training

Local training hubs

Funded training days

Inclusion officer ratios – more required for services



Communication to parents/providers

Information and explanations needed

Formal presentations and protocols

Use of podcasts/videos

Audio-visual communication

Timeline

Lack of knowledge among parents of primary school supports

Issue around early and late diagnosis

Greater link between agencies needed

Inclusive segregation

Inconsistent

Whole centre should be inclusive – for example, sensory rooms can be

utilised by all children

Understanding needed on additional person in the room versus SNA


table

Two intakes doesn’t work

New lower age – parents of children born January to March very unhappy

Level of flexibility needed

Possibility that those who start at the lower end of the age range could be too young to get

a primary school place when they finish

Co-ordination needed with primary schools to enrolment age


Transitions to primary school

Upper and lower age limits

Early Start programme anomalies

Training

Knowledge/communication



Table 2

Facilitator Kathryn O’Riordan

Note taker Aoife O’Flaherty

Morning session

Current System: Positives

When ECCE was 1 year only, overage exemption meant splitting the

provision between 2 years – difficult to provide for pre-AIM

AIM enables childcare providers to engage with parents

Diagnosis not necessary to avail of AIM – something many parents are

unaware of

Need to focus on reaching aims and goals

LINC is vital to support services with how to support parents and children

AIM works directly in pre-school settings and doesn’t need to wait for

diagnosis

Eligibility date always needed

1:11 ratio quite high in cases of children with disabilities – AIM positive to

reduce ratio

Impossible to “fix” everything – different people have different perspectives

Current System: Negatives

Strain on local resources when ECCE increased to two years

Unequal level of ECCE depending on date of birth (in the past)

Three entry points difficult for providers

Not all children will fit into full two years depending on primary school start

date

Note Pre-school readiness – some children won’t be ready at 2 years and 8

months. Would need to avail of 2 years (at a later/older age) – delay start of

ECCE

Looking for extra year because can’t get place in ASD primary school class

Parents need to choose between ECCE and Home Tuition – ECCE

sometimes the more popular choice



Educational passport re child’s interests between primary and secondary

school – introduce between pre-school and primary school

AIM still isn’t known to everyone

A need to stay in pre-school to remain eligible for other supports (for

example, St Michael’s House)

Not enough information for service providers

Delay between child starting ECCE and accessing their need for AIM (up to

3 months)

Different situations and approaches indifferent areas throughout the country

Other Issues

Need to identify needs and resources for the child going from pre-school to

primary school – not just strengths and weaknesses

Under pressure to identify resource hours without formal diagnosis

Huge waiting lists for assessment of needs

Parents are fearful to make contact with primary schools about additional needs in case it

negatively affects getting a place (in reality this is not the case)

It takes two years to build on and develop a child’s strengths

Training and upskilling of workforce to develop inclusion

In primary schools, class sizes can be too big in order to have an SNA in a

class

Junior infants classes need more resources

Not enough training for early years services outside of LINC

Early years training goes outside of hours

Needs transition piece between pre-school and primary school

First five years are so important – investment in future

Need a pathway for children with disabilities that are not visible

Services need support and encouragement to plan

Services can feel that they won’t be able to manage and support a child with,

for example, a severe allergy



Afternoon session

Issues and solutions, or options suggested

Age cut off points always a problem

Not every service understands AIM

Why are children getting exemptions but not AIM?

Needs to be upper age limit

Inconsistencies between what different specialists recommend

More collaboration needed between the Department of Children and Youth

Affairs and the Department of Education and Skills

Challenge predicting when child should start school

Pre-school, national school, AIM, National Council for Curriculum

Assessment, etc. workforce should be trained together

Aistear into primary school

How to transition from 1:8 ratio to 1:28 – more collaboration needed on

transition

Uniform curriculum between preschool and infants needed

Post primary level still catching up with the level of primary school resources

Technology negatively affecting language skills of children. Can’t express

themselves

More Speech and Language intervention is needed in comparison to 15 years

ago

More Occupational Therapy needed in society – children’s movement is

lower

Different areas have different supports available

Early years training done on the providers own time and money

Early yeas sector is in a staff crisis

Staff in pre-schools moving into primary school education (for example,

SNAs) – much more attractive sector for pay, holidays, etc.

Provide parents with educational training? They are the primary educator

Can be a lot of pressure on parents

No support for children in services who are too young for AIM



Parents can be reluctant to apply for supports – don’t want to label the child

No support outside of ECCE, for example, summer holidays and those under

3

Should be getting to the child as early as possible – not just when they turn

ECCE eligible

Communication needed so parents understand AIM

Difficult to link with local schools

Give parents contact details for Special Educational Needs Organisers , etc. as

early as possible

Pre-schools differ so much that it’s difficult for primary schools to liaise

Note: Transition piece – evidence and outcome based – pass on useful info

around exactly what supports will be needed – snapshot of child’s progression

identifies what skills need to be worked on

Should be standardised – parents’ consent, positive language

Child’s profile must be accurate, parent might not agree but they need to sign

off on it – need to come to an agreement with the parent – very challenging

Specialist placements need for certain primary placements – parents holding

child in ECCE to enable getting a diagnosis so they can get their desired

primary placement

Can’t access certain supports without a diagnosis


table

Scenario C – can’t keep places until January – difficult to plan

Aistear enables working with all ages

Lack of capacity with more than one start date

If a child starts before any additional need is apparent and then isn’t ready for

primary school after two years ECCE they would still need an exemption –

can they still apply for an additional year of funding?

Preferred Option B



Table 3

Facilitator Eimear Carron

Note Taker Aoife Calnan

Morning session

Current System positives

ECCE is beneficial for preparing children for Primary school

ECCE also helps schools to be more ready for new entrants

AIM programme is very beneficial

Current system negatives

The age of entry is not inclusive enough

The over-age exemption criteria are not broad enough to cover the unique

and varying needs of children. Needs to be more case dependent

Not enough support for parents following diagnosis of a child

Not sufficient accessible information for parents on education options for

their child with special needs

The transition of children in AIM programme from pre-school to primary

school is not fluid enough-more information sharing between both

organisations is needed

Children not progressing with peers

Other issues

Parents may be requesting over age exemptions to keep children in pre-

school longer as they fear there may not be the correct support available for

their child in primary school

Possibility of AIM supports to extend beyond the 3 hours ECCE time for

those children in full-time childcare

Aistear curriculum needs to be used as a teaching tool in more schools

A transition phase between pre-school and primary school would be useful

Concerns that extending ECCE beyond 2 years for a child may be counter-

productive as their learning and development may not progress


Transitioning of children from ECCE and AIM to primary school is not

streamlined enough. More communication is needed between all parties that

is, parents, professionals, pre-school providers and primary school teachers.

Make this process mandatory



Better supports for children with special needs in primary schools to allay

fears of parent Information for parents to be made more easily available

Afternoon session

Issues

Upper age of ECCE to be increased above 5yrs 6 mths

Not enough clarity on what over-age exemption means and processes/ rules

Not enough communication between stakeholders and parents

Transition from preschool to primary not streamlined

Concerns around the practicalities within the primary school start age in

relation to- ratios; school readiness; toilet training/changing facilities

Current primary school start age is 4.5yrs to 5yrs

Solutions/options

Have more flexibility around over age exemptions but within legal parameters

Inform parents of benefit of 2 years of ECCE to keep school start age higher

DEIS schools to be used as a model for transition

Ensure that child’s best interest is at heart

Parents to be more aware of what school ‘readiness’ means so they can be

more confident about progressing a child

Parents to be made aware of the supports available to their children earlier in

the year of primary school enrolment

Creating a new post to specifically deal with the coordination of transition

Observations on exemption issue and table scenarios

Start/end dates can be restrictive-children should be able to start when ready

Start date of January can result in parents paying preschool fees for 9 months

Priority issues

Better communication between preschool providers and primary schools to

aid transition of child

More clarity for parents regarding school readiness to ensure the child’s best

interest at heart

Ensure correct supports are in place for a child before transitioning to

primary school

Easy access for parents to information on the most appropriate supports

available to a child throughout their school years



Table 4

Facilitator Oonagh Fleming

Note taker Jamie Kennedy

Morning session

Current System - Positives

ECCE gives children with additional needs access to a mainstream

educational setting where they would have been previously excluded.

Delayed / deferred start of ECCE can be useful for children who are not

yet ready to progressIssue is children who miss programme entry dates

(and provider capacity)

Negatives

Split placements for children with additional needs to attend specialist service

(not related to overage)

Lack of clarification around the overage exemption – needs clear explanation

on what it is that the child is going to be exempt from.

Is the child exempt from starting school at 6 years

Is the child exempt of the ECCE programme rules?

School enrolment and availability can dictate children applying for an

exemption

Children with additional needs may not be ready for preschool at programme

entry age – and won’t get full complement of ECCE if they do not benefit

from an overage exemption. Parents may feel that they are not getting their

full entitlement.

Lack of spaces (capacity) – operators may not have the capacity to allow for

an exemption.

Specialist preschool option not readily available nationwide

Table felt that it is best if a mainstream provider can provide the supports

for a child with additional needs if they can facilitate

AIM national coverage has benefits over specialist provider/services

Splitting programme years causes issues

Children with additional needs identified but not yet diagnosed.

Application process for exemption is difficult for parents

Recommendation letter from specialists



National Council for Curriculum and Assessment report highlights issues with

transition and capacity

Some parents are reluctant to enter AIM programme based on the

terminology/ stigma around the word disability.

Other issues

Transition between preschool and school – no formal procedure

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment advice and guidelines

A facility needs to be put in place to support older children (who have had an

exemption) who will therefore finish school later.

Distinct lack of a whole of government plan for entire educational journey

(hiccups/glitches) School carrying on from AIM

SNA provision may change between preschool and school - The need for a

diagnosis in school can be a barrier – loss of SNA

Change of system for parents – new application process etc

There is a need for a linked-up system from preschool to 3rd level (whole life)

Difficulty of multi-system process highlighted over and again. (for children

and parents)

Parents may not be the best arbitrator for the child’s needs. Fears and

emotions may cloud their judgement. Difficulty and upset can be caused by

change – moving out of the comfort zone of a system the parents know,

understand and that they find to be working for the child to an alien

system with different processes


Clarify on overage exemption

Seamless journey of transition

Concerns of capacity in the sector

Parents’ choice (76 weeks)

Delayed start

Incongruity of 2 models of support – AIM versus the school system



Afternoon session


Flexibility – to extend time for child to remain in ECCE

Worry around assessments etc

Support in transition to completely different systems

Seamless – should have same criteria to apply

Communication to parents (overarching)

Less assessment

Dependency on capacity issues for entry and exit pathways

Suitable access to match needs (over 3 years)

Research and information needs to be conducted and collected from wide

ranging perspectives.

Focus on the quality of the services offered, requiring monitoring and

reporting

Inclusion – quality inclusion for children with additional needs

Why parents want an exemption and address it


table

Option/Senario B was highlighted as the most appealing however, HSE rep noted

that from a health care position it is not the idea scenario. An issue was raised

that Early Intervention Team ends at 5.

Issues, and solutions or options suggested

Integration does not always equal inclusion. (Odd one out situation)

Continuity of relationships – good grounding (security or routine)

Minimise the stigma of being “kept back”

Parents have to understand that they have the choice with entry/ exit

Option to have 2 years

Schools are not fully aware of early years programmes and providers or

feeder services – lack of mutual understanding

School / preschool relationships – parents should see it as a linked up service

rather than two distinct processes



Transportation can be an issue for children with additional need

Mixed age rooms/ groups – preferred choice for many

Older children display leadership

Social development

Younger children learn from older

Early intervention team – up to 6 yrs

Big change for a child if they to transition between preschool and school

during the same period that they lose the Early Intervention Team

Often need the Early Intervention team to support them in their transition

to school

Difficulty to get suitable qualified person who fits the hours offered etc

Sector struggles to find suitably qualified persons anyway – more so for less

than full time hours



Table 5

Facilitator Mary Robb

Note taker Sylvia Cox

Morning session

Flexibilility

One of the major discussions of the morning was around flexibility within the

scheme. The main points put across were:

Age Restriction- the limit of 5 years and 6 months seemed to be a problem

Age Restriction- on babies who were born prematurely, seem to be missing

out because of their birth date

Pro Rata -, Parents feel that the option of Pro Rata is gone, for example, if

their child had special/additional needs and was unable to avail of the full

entitlement of 5 days per week, they put forward that they can still avail of

the pro-rata option over 2 years and receive a 3rd year of ECCE for

whatever no. of days a child can do. The child would in fact still only have

availed of 2 years of ECCE in total albeit over a 3 programme year period

Parents feel that the option of one intake of school start in September is

limited

Parents feel that they should be able to choose what year to send their child

to pre-school and still avail of the 2 year programme before reaching the age

of 6, with some parents still suggesting that if their child is still within the age

limit having availed of the full 2 years, they feel they should be entitled to

another year of ECCE. For example, if a parent sent their child to pre-school

at the age of 2 years 8 months, they could avail of 3 years of ECCE and still

be within the age range of starting school

Administration: this should not be an issue for parents when choosing when

to send their child to pre-school

AIM

The timeline of an AIM Assessment was discussed. It seems that a clearer more

defined process should be put in order around the timeline to apply for AIM, an

for example, given was that more time should be given in order to hire

special/additional staff

The functionality and process of AIM and the interactions with Early Years was

discussed



Communications

Communications among all stakeholders seems to becoming an issue. Some of

the suggestions around communication were:

There should be more awareness and understanding especially around the

smaller services

There should be a communications strategy between the

City/CountyChildcare Committees and providers

More communication to parents around how and when to apply for AIM in

order that there is sufficient time for assessment etc.

There should be clearer definitions around the difference between

observation and assessment within AIM

Issues discussed

Readiness of children to commence Primary school at age 4

The consequence of having a wider age range ,for example, not enough places

to accommodation more children

Segregated specialist pre-schools

Integration is being missed – “Inclusive Segregation”

Difficult to balance the different age ranges of children , for example, literacy

levels across a broad age range/toilet training etc.

A suggestion was made that maybe the guidelines/enrolment policies of individual

services or a standard one could be looked at

Issues arising around the overage exemptions

Should be clearer guidelines on the overage exemptions

When to apply

How to decide when a child is ready?

Age of Special School Sector – noting that the age limit of a Special Needs

School doesn’t extend beyond 18 years of age

There could be a much older child with their peers, is this a good idea?



A discussion arose as to whether when deciding to send a child to school, could

it be considered if children are socially and academically ready rather than the age

of the child.

Training

There was a lot of discussion around the issue of training and staffing, for

example,

The difference between the qualifications of SNA’s and pre-school workers

Could there be an overview of the pre-school/school curriculum in relation

to Siolta/Aistear etc.

Resources for transitioning from Pre-school to Primary school, for example,

should speech and language reports be sent to the Primary school prior to

child starting school

Training staff

Afternoon session

Solutions

There was a discussion around the issue of the overage exemptions and a few

issues were highlighted as possible ways of solving some of the issues surrounding

the overage exemptions.

Sufficient Flexibility – Is there a need for exemptions at all, should a parent

not be able to choose which 2 years they send their child to pre-school

provided they are in Primary school by the age of 6 years

Should the Department of Children and Youth Affairs/Department of

Education look at the idea of making pre-schools a recognised level of

Education

Communication: between the service provider and the parent needs to be

looked at in order to speed up the application process for supports. Why is

it taking so long for supports to be approved for children

Administration: If another year of ECCE was approved, who would support

it? Should an early educator be involved in the transition period or a specialist

be involved in the development assessment?



Other Solutions could be:

More administration supports , for example,if a child has already been

assessed in pre-school as having a special/additional needs , such as, speech

and language, could there not be some sort of IT Solution (Online Approval

System – one point of contact that everyone can access), whereby a child is

given a unique number, that a number of services/schools can access and use

in order to save time when trying to access additional supports?

Pilot Occupational/Speech Therapy for schools

More communication with parents on what type of guides are available from

,for example, NCSE regarding transitioning to school etc.

Should we start looking at automatically sending parents information and

guides in relation to a child’s date of birth

School readiness -should there be a consultation process around this? One

solution mentioned was that schools should be ready rather than the child.

Research on Children who attend Mainstream to Special Needs School – Has

there been any previous research been done

Look at the childs needs – what’s best for the child with respect to local

services

Mainstream or Special School – look at pressure on parents to send

children to a mainstream school, they could be more discussion with

Parents along with more supports for parents

Childs Self Esteem

Another pre-school year?

Other Issues surrounding an extra year of pre-school

Acceptance from parents in relation to a child with special/additional needs

Some Example Solutions

Minimum start age should be an 18 month period

Extend the age range to 2 years 8 months – 3 years 11 months

Extra SNA’s/Resources in Primary Schools

Maybe call it a different scheme

Transition period of a couple of years



Table 6

Facilitator Gwen Doyle

Note taker Cathy Mohan

Morning session

Current System Positives: The benefits of early intervention can be seen

Children don’t have to start school at a very early age

Parents can assess at the time if their child is ready to start school. The

exemption gives the option to decide when to send a child to school having

seen how their child has progressed in pre-school

Could split one year’s ECCE over a two year period

The numbers availing of the exemption are very low; only 500 children avail of

it annually

As the scheme exists only fifty children started school over the age of six

years

There are no negatives for a child with special needs starting school over the

age of six years

Current System Negatives

Still very boundary driven

From an administrative point of view the new one entry point instead of the

current three separate entry points would be easier to manage

Other issues

The new system will not be equally accessible or equitable

Timing is too narrowly defined and too restrictive

Under the new system children could be starting school at a very young age

After receiving two years ECCE children could be four years and eight

months starting school

Children who are not suitable to start at two years and eight months may not

get the full two years ECCE

If parents decide to keep their child in pre-school for a third year they will

not get ECCE, they would have to fund it themselves and after having two

years of ECCE with AIM supports the child would then have one year

without their previous supports

Is there current data available on children who have availed of the exemption?



The system should be tested for much longer before getting rid of the

exemption

Because of the rules changing there will be a cohort of parents who will have

been given wrong information (even though it would have been correct at the

time that they were given the information)

How can we review something that is still in motion? There should be a lived

in experience before any decisions are made

Let the new ECCE model roll out and still keep the exemption. Research all

of the implications and then decide each case on its own merit

Who communicates with the parents so they can understand the full impact/

get the full picture? City/County Childcare Committees previously

communicated with the parents but now it appears that it is mainly down to

the provider to communicate with parents.

The mixture of supports available is confusing for example, ECCE, AIM,

Home Tuition. They appear to be uncoordinated and overlapping

Is there data collection and evaluation available on the impact on a child who

has availed of the over age exemption and what were the benefits?

Legislation that a child must attend school at six years is very unclear. The

legislation needs to be clarified

Pre-school providers want the child to be ready for school and they work

with the child on their readiness for school

If there is no exemption the primary school will have to be able to provide

the child with the supports required to deal with the transition from pre-

school to primary school

Priority Issues from the table

Keep parents informed and respected

There is too much change in too short a time. There is not enough time to

see how everything rolls out. Change is welcome but it should not be rushed

and it should be tested to see how it is working

Because of so much change communication/information between the relevant

organisations may not be up to date

The child’s readiness has to be acknowledged because a child’s eligibility may

not be the same as a child’s readiness

Not only should the child’s readiness for school be acknowledged but it is

also important to acknowledge the school’s readiness for the child



Afternoon session Issues and solutions or options suggested

Issue: Communication between various organisations

Solution: There should be one single point of contact to gain access to all

information. A central agency or a role or a “go to” contact should be created

to communicate with parents

There should be clear information from Department of Children and

Youth Affairs, HSE, Children and Young People’s Services Committees,

and NCSE and there should be consistency and uniformity in all this

information

Contact details should be shared between all organisations perhaps having

a regular Forum where this could be done

There should be a map of all services available. A working group might be

needed to create this map

Parameters should be clearly defined.

There should be a consistent curriculum approach from pre-school to

primary school (for example, Aistear)

Issue: Pre-school providers should link in with primary schools. If

there is no longer an over age exemption can primary schools

provide the required curriculum for children with special needs?

Solution: There should be a national policy to deal with the transition from

pre-school to primary school. (There is currently a National Council for

Curriculum and Assessment pilot for this)

Issue: Over age exemption has to be re-introduced

Solution: There needs to be a lead-in time if there are going to be changes. It

has to be acknowledged that families plan the options available for their child

with the information that is available to them at the time. Parents cannot

always make an informed decision on future options that they may have for

their child as they cannot be sure at what rate their child will progress

Issue: Providers need to have access to the criteria for over age

exemptions and AIM. There are no current guidelines available for

over age exemptions



Solution: Information has to out there readily available and accessible. The

information should be on a website. It has to be acknowledged that providers

are qualified professionals

Issue: The child should be central to everything. The child has to be

the main focus

Solution: Continue to have flexibility in ECCE over age exemption. The

readiness of the individual child is the main thing that has to be considered


table

Table six did not discuss the scenarios at the table. It was felt that their

discussion covered most of the issues

Priority Issues from the table

Would extending the over age exemption impact on the number of pre-

school places that are available?

Decisions to grant an over age exemption should be led by the individual

needs of the child not diagnosis led

The primary school approach on training will have to be re-examined.

Aistear should be a huge part of the child’s education. There would be no

need for over age exemptions if the primary school was ready for the child

and if the school was provided with the required supports. The child must be

ready for primary school but the school must be ready for the child

Department of Education and Skills policy/legislation will have to be revised

/reviewed

Parents will not under any circumstances want to send their child to school

unless they feel that their child is ready. They will wait until the child is ready

even if they have to pay for the third year in pre-school themselves but this

would lead to the child not receiving the intensive supports that he/she had

previously received for example, AIM

Leave the exemption in place for two ECCE years on a pilot basis and see

how it rolls out. Monitor the progress of the children who have availed of the

over age exemption



Table 7

Facilitator: Orla Cooper

Note taker: Nicole McMahon

Morning session

Current system: Positives

In 2010 – there were no national supports/interventions. Parents also

struggled financially

The message to parents was that 1 year was sufficient and that if 2 years were

required it implied that the child had greater needs

While the application process was fairly straightforward (in that the

exemption was generally granted), it was noted that the criteria wasn’t very

clear (that is, there were no clear guidelines) and that greater transparency

was needed. Experience of children with similar needs having different success

when applying for overage exemption

Wide age range between the children due to expansion of ECCE

Seen as both positive and negative

Perception that if the service is large it is fine, as you can have different

rooms allocated to the different age ranges. May be harder for smaller

services

Younger children can learn from the older children. Though equally, it was

noted, that there is the potential for regression if the older children start

to imitate the younger ones

Peers doesn’t necessarily mean age – could be peers on a developmental

level

Other issues

ECCE age eligibility frequently changing – goalposts keep changing

AIM – positive feedback generally, though not without issues

Acknowledgement that AIM is in the early stages

Not all services (or parents) know how to apply for AIM

HSE need to get in earlier-early intervention is key

Level 4 – problem with the use of the word ‘disability’ (inappropriate)

especially where there is no diagnosis



Parents may have difficulty accepting that their child may have additional

needs

It was suggested that if the overage exemption was not based on diagnosis

(that is if it was universal), this wouldn’t be a problem

Transition between preschool and primary school is not structured

No connect between AIM supports and those provided in primary

The transition will always be harder for some children over others, so

there is a need for transition supports to be available

New resource allocation model for schools should include the AIM

resources that a child has availed of

Good for a child to be a little bit older going into primary school but to be

mindful of too wide an age gap

School readiness – socially, not just academically

Better to be a year older than go to school when not ready

Financial implications for a service if they take on a child who is not

eligible for ECCE (if they are unable to obtain an overage exemption)

For example, commercial rates, as the service will no longer be providing

ECCE only

Issues for service providers

Staffing – turnover of staff, as it is a 38 week programme, and issues re

pay and conditions


Age limits for ECCE – If they are to stay in place then the overage

exemption is a necessity (essential)

Lack of clear Information

Transition from preschool to primary school

Early Intervention is critical – it is too delayed



Afternoon session


Age limits for ECCE are too restrictive

To remove the age limits, on the proviso that the child will be in school by

age 6

Parental choice as to when the child avails of the two years.

Choice to delay start but also to ensure that Early Intervention in brought

in in a timely manner

If a child starts ECCE later, then early intervention outside the pre-school

setting is vital

Transition to primary school

Possibility of allowing children to start primary school in June to ease the

transition, depending on their month of birth.

Better cooperation between all interested parties (parents, preschool and the

primary school)

NCSE information sessions, which are facilitated by the HSE are not rolled

out across the country and should be. Good example of collaborative

working.

There should be a structured, national transition process in place (such as the

passport) that takes into account the amount of time it takes to implement

There could also be a transition process in place for children entering pre-

school

Specialist Training

Specialist to provide training to the childcare provider to cater for the

child’s specific needs - that a plan would be put in place

AIM

Child to be fully supported for the full two years

For AIM team to interact directly with parents in providing information

(the AIM website was deemed not user-friendly for parents)

LINC needs to be expanded to cater for more people-LINC-trained staff

could be best placed to liaise with parents on supports available

Need for structures/supports for children who cannot attend preschool

for a variety of reasons



Lack of clear information

Parents reliant on service providers to provide information

More information should be made available. Parents may incorrectly

assume that due to their child’s needs they would not be accommodated

in pre-school

Messaging needs to be about inclusion as it benefits everyone


table

Leave as is

That a child can avail of an overage exemption if required, with Early

Intervention critical

For a child that has only availed of 1.5 years of ECCE (those eligible for

61 weeks under the current rules), to be allowed avail of an overage

exemption, where a special/additional need exists

Supports should be seamless, shouldn’t be a battle

Need for structures not to be dependent on diagnosis

Need for transparent criteria/guidelines for overage exemptions

IF (as a last resort), the overage exemption is removed, then there should be

a subsidy for parents to maintain their child in preschool for another year,

with AIM supports continuing

There are children who do not attend pre-school and who also require

supports and intervention

Whatever action(s) are taken, they should be child lead and not system lead

(shouldn’t set a child up to fail)


Same as the morning session

Age limits for ECCE – If they are to stay in place then the overage

exemption is a necessity (essential)

Lack of clear Information-communication is key

Transition from preschool to primary school

Early Intervention needs to be brought in sooner – too delayed



Table 8

Facilitator Louise Fitzpatrick

Note taker Alan Padden

Morning session

Pros and cons of 1 year ECCE offer

Positives

Offers structured routine to children that need it

Parents that were previously unable to send children due to the cost were

now in a position to avail of the free service

Enables children to develop their language and social skills

Has led to an increase in standards in services as a result of training and

support and inspections

A child with a disability could spread their 1 year over a 2 year time frame,

this compensated for missing out on time due to other appointments

Negatives

The previous 1 year system was ad hoc depending on where you lived, for

example you might have been able to enter the scheme in January if a place

was available with a provider near you

If a parent could afford a 2nd year, they could pay but this represented an

inequity

Disadvantaged children would have needed the extra year, but this was

unavailable to them

Other issues

How have things changed? – 2 year process

Gives children more time to children in pre-school

Special schools do not avail of AIM

It was noted that there is a disparity with other related supports between the

age of children at entry and exit points

There was concern that many children could be forced to start school at 4

years and 8 months, regardless of school readiness, due to the only entry

point which is dictated by the child’s date of birth. – no extension available

for children with disabilities

Before AIM was introduced, children were splitting their time between

special school and ECCE, now some children are doing 1 year with the HSE

and could do 2 years ECCE if they are eligible for the overage exemption



Now all services delivering ECCE have access to funding on a needs basis

Parents are feeling rushed into making decisions about their child’s future and

not have a transition plan in place

Parents feel pressured when they are unaware of what supports will be

available to them and have a fear of change - ‘go with what you know’

If there is a late diagnosis of issues with a child’s development this can have a

knock on effect

It was suggested that a needs based vs diagnosis based view is needed when

transitioning to school

There is a lack of supports available to help parents prepare for transition to

secondary school esp. if they are on a waiting list

More support needs to be given to preschool providers as they are often

called upon to give support to parents about making decisions on transition

into school

There are concerns about the gap between HSE support and AIM support

There is a need for a continuum of support from AIM to junior infants as

there is currently a lack of protocols for NCSE and Better Start to engage

with each other

There is a need for the Education (Admissions to Schools) Bill 2016 to

remove any barriers that are present

Problems down the line

If a child is late starting school, this could result in them having to leave school

early due to their age. ( Department of Education and Skills’ responsibility

ends at age 18 years, so if a child moves to second level at age 14 years they

have only 4 guaranteed years of education left)

Parents will stick to what they know if they are unaware of the supports that

are available to their child

It was thought that 3 years of pre-school may be too much for some children

It is hard to know at 2.6 months whether a child will be ready for school 2

years later

The child’s date of birth should not dictate when they can access ECCE

The wide age range in late childhood may be inappropriate as older children

may imitate younger and vice versa

It is good to transition at the same time as peers



Education memo to schools states that all children need to progress to 1st

class by age 6.5 years. A school can decide to move a child up a year without

the consent of a parent

It needs to be evident how parents can access all information available to

weigh up the pros and cons of the decisions they are about to make

Finding placements in schools and positions on waiting lists could prove

problematic

Quality of education provision is very important

There is a need for wraparound services around family to engage with each

other fully

There is a gap around the area of family supports

Criteria

It was agreed that the criteria of date of birth was unfitting

A professional recommendation can only be acquired if parents are in a

position to financially, and if the result is not received until late in the year, a

place may not be available with the service

If the overage exemption is granted late in the year, this means the school

application may also be applied for late in the year


A transition plan for the child needs to be put in place

Support for parents before making decisions by providing them with the full

facts of what is available to them

Proper protocols need to be established to enable interaction between

agencies

Afternoon session


If parents decide to keep children in preschool there are knock on effects

further down the line, for example the age of the child

There is a need to change the rule in the Education (Admissions to

Schools) Bill 2016 that requires children to transfer out of senior infants at

6 years 6 months

The minimum start age in Scenario B would align with the home tuition

scheme and ASD preschool provision

Department of Education and Skills Early Start preschools are only 1 year in

duration; this should transfer to 2 years



DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) preschools need access

to AIM supports

There is a need for alignment between school age supports and early

intervention

There is also a need for alignment within the HSE and HSE funded services

countrywide


table

None of the scenarios will address the issues that have been raised

Scenario B offers flexibility by starting 2 month earlier or by delaying it for a

year


Transition Plans

Resources are required for the national policy on early intervention team for

children’s disability network

The Department of Education and Skills recruitment of therapists is resulting

in a number of staff leaving posts within the early intervention team to take up

roles in schools. This will leave these early intervention teams even more

under resourced (unintended consequences)

Implement the national policy on progressing disability services for children

and young persons aged 0-18 years and paediatric care (Department of

Health)

Parental Support

Enable preschool teachers to pass on information to parents that they will

need to make an informed decision about the next steps for their child (that

is. the down the line consequences, their options in schools etc)

A consequence of not implementing national policy is parents are forced to

make decisions on education placements based on the availability of

therapeutic supports. (child following supports rather than the supports

following the child)

Protocols

There is a need for a continuum of support from AIM to junior infants as

there is currently a lack of protocols for NCSE and Better Start to engage

with each other

Build capacity in schools to work with children with disabilities starting with

teacher education



Appendix 4.3: Scenarios for addressing the overage

exemption issue – a prompt to the Open Policy

Debate

Factors for

consideration Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Preferred

optimum

option from

the table

Number of

intakes Single

(September)

Single

(September)

Two

(September or

January)

Minimum start

age 2 years eight

months to 3

years 7

months

(depending

on date of

birth)

2 years six

month to 3

years 6

months

(depending on

date of birth)

2 years eight

months to 3

years 7

months

(depending on

date of birth)

Max offer Up to two

programme

years

Up to two

programme

years

Up to two

programme

years

Maximum /

minimum

school starting

age

4 years 8

months to

five years 7

months

Four years 6

months to 5

years 11

months

Four years 6

months to 5

years 7

months

Flexibility Fixed

(depending

on date of

birth)

Choice of

which

September

you start

Two choices

of start point

Advantages For

discussion at

tables

For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables

Disadvantages For

discussion at

tables

For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables

Overage

exemption

possible

options

For

discussion at

tables

For discussion

at tables

For discussion

at tables



Appendix 5– Parents survey questionnaire

Personal details

In this section you will be asked some questions about the child on whose behalf

you applied for an exemption to the upper age limit for the Early Childhood

Care and Education pre-school programme. Early Childhood Care and

Education

1. What county were you living in when you applied for an exemption to the

upper age limit for the Early Childhood Care and Education pre-

school programme?

2. What is your child’s gender?

1. Male

2. Female

3. What age was your child when they first attended the Early Childhood

Care and Education pre-school programme? Please give your answer in

years and months.

4. What is your child’s current pattern of attendance in the Early

Childhood Care and Education pre-school programme?

1. Full attendance – that is, 3 hours per day, five days per weeks over

the thirty-eight week Early Childhood Care and Education pre-

school programme year.

2. Part attendance - that is, less than 3 hours per day, five days per

weeks over the thirty-eight week Early Childhood Care and

Education pre-school programme year

5. Had your child been in any childcare arrangement outside the family home

on a regular basis prior to when they first attended the Early Childhood

Care and Education pre-school programme?

1. Yes

2. No

6. If you answered ‘Yes’ to Question 5 above, please pick the childcare

arrangement below which best describes this previous childcare

arrangement:

1. Childminder

2. Mainstream Crèche / preschool



3. Special pre-school, operated by the HSE or disability service

provider

4. Other special pre-school

5. Other (please specify)

At what point did you apply for an exemption to the upper age limit for the

Early Childhood Care and Education pre-school programme for your child?

1. When you first enrolled your child in the Early Childhood Care and

Education pre-school programme

2. While your child was in their first year of the Early Childhood Care

and Education pre-school programme

3. While your child was in their second year of the Early Childhood

Care and Education pre-school programme.

4. I don’t remember / I’m not sure

8. What is the nature of your child’s primary disability upon which your

application for an exemption to the upper age limit for the Early

Childhood Care and Education pre-school programme was based?

1. Intellectual disability

2. Communication difficulty

3. Physical disability

4. Sensory disability

5. Autism / ASD

6. Behavioural issues


An application for an exemption to the upper age limit to the Early Childhood

Care and Education pre-school programme must be accompanied by a letter

from a relevant professional.

9. Who provided this letter in the case of your child’s application?

1. Speech and Language Therapist

2. Psychologist



3. Occupational Therapist

4. Physiotherapist

5. Hospital Doctor


Information, advice and concerns

In this section you will be asked some questions about:

Where you first heard about exemptions to the upper age limit of the

Early Childhood Care and Education pre-school programme

Your reason/ for applying for an exemption

Advice that you may have received about these exemptions

Information

10. How did you first hear about exemption to the upper age limit of the

Early Childhood Care and Education pre-school programme?

(Choose more than one option if relevant)

1. From another parent

2. From a friend, family, colleague

3. From a pre-school staff member

4. From a disability professional (Psychologist, Speech and Language

Therapist, Occupational Therapist, etc)

5. From a health professional (Public Health Nurse, G.P., Hospital

Doctor)

6. From an education professional (primary school teacher or school

principal, Special Education Needs Coordinator (SENO))

7. On an online forum


Reasons for applying for an overage exemption:

11. What were the main factors which informed your decision to apply for an

exemption to the upper age limit of the Early Childhood Care and

Education pre-school programme for your child (tick all that apply)

1. I had concerns about my child’s readiness for primary school

2. I had concerns about the ability of the available primary school(s) to

meet my child ‘s needs




If you had concerns about your child’s readiness for primary school, to what

extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

12. I believed that my child would have had greater difficulty

academically in primary school without an extra year of preschool

(for example, difficulty completing tasks set by teacher)

Strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, strongly disagree

13. I believed that my child would have had greater difficulty socially in

primary school without an extra year of preschool (for example,

difficulty making friends).


14. I believed that my child would have had greater difficulty

behaviourally in primary school without an extra year of preschool

(for example, getting corrected by their teacher frequently).


15. If you had concerns about the ability of the available primary school(s)

to meet your child’s needs (compared to pre-school) please describe

your concerns.

Free text

16. If you had concerns about the ability of the available primary school(s)

to meet your child’s needs (compared to pre-school) did you discuss

these concerns with the primary school before applying for an

exemption? For example, by talking to the primary school’s class

teacher or principal.

1. Yes

2. No

3. Not sure or can’t remember

17. If you wish to provide further detail about your reasons for applying

for an exemption to the upper age limit of the Early Childhood

Care and Education pre-school programme on your child’s behalf

please do so in the space below.

Open text



Advice from professionals

18. Did you discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of your

child remaining in preschool for an extra year with professionals who

work in areas related to child development?

1. Yes

2. No

19. If yes, please select who you discussed the possible advantages and

disadvantages of your child remaining in the Early Childhood Care

and Education preschool programme for an additional year with

from the list below.

1. Preschool staff

2. Disability professional (Psychologist, Speech and Language Therapist

Occupational Therapist, etc)

3. Health professional (Public Health Nurse, Hospital Doctor)

4. Education professional (teacher, school principal, Special Education

Needs Coordinator)

5. Other professional, please specify

20. Please outline the advice given to you by the professional identified

above in question 19 on the potential advantages of your child

remaining in the Early Childhood Care and Education preschool

programme for an additional year. Open text

21. Please outline the advice given to you by the professional identified

above in question 19 on the potential disadvantages for your child

remaining in the Early Childhood Care and Education preschool

programme for an additional year.

Open text

Preschool supports

In this section you will be asked some questions about whether the preschool

that your child attends receives any Access and Inclusion Model (AIM)

supports to assist your child in availing of the ECCE pre-school programme.



AIM supports

You may be aware that from September 2016 a model of supports for preschool

children with disability, called the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM), was

introduced. AIM is a model of supports designed to ensure that children with

disabilities can access the Early Childhood Care and Education pre-school

programme in mainstream pre-school settings and can participate fully in the pre-

school curriculum alongside their peers.

AIM is a child centred model of supports, involving seven levels of support based

on the needs of the child and the pre-school provider (for example, training of

pre-school practitioners, grants for equipment, appliances and minor alterations,

access to therapeutic supports etc)

22. Are you aware that AIM supports are available to children with

disabilities participating in the Early Childhood Care and

Education pre-school programme?

1. Yes

2. No

23. Did your pre-school provider discuss applying for AIM supports within

the Early Childhood Care and Education pre-school programme

with you?

1. Yes

2. No


24. Did your pre-school provider apply for AIM supports specifically for

your child (you would have had to complete the paperwork with the

pre-school provider)?

1. Yes

2. No


25. Does your pre-school provider receive any AIM supports specifically

for your child (you would have had to complete the paperwork with

the pre-school provider)?

1. Yes

2. No



3. Not sure

26. If you answered “Yes” to question 25 above please outline (in the

space below), what AIM supports your preschool receives to support

them in providing the Early Childhood Care and Education pre-

school programme to your child (you would have had to complete the

paperwork with the pre-school provider).

Open text

Other supports

AIM was launched nationally in September 2016. However, some previously

existing arrangements continue to operate locally, for example, local HSE or

disability service providers provide supports to individual children to attend

mainstream pre-schools. This could have been provided in the form of some Pre-

school Special Needs Assistant hours, for example.

27. Does your child receive any support in the pre-school setting from

local HSE or disability service providers?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Not sure

28. If you answered “Yes” to question 27 above please describe the

support that your child receives in the pre-school setting from local

HSE or disability service providers.

Open text

Transitions to Primary School

29. What age will your child be in September 2018 (when they will first

attend primary school)? (In years plus months).

30. When your child transitions to primary school, what type of school /

class will they move to?

1. A mainstream class in a mainstream primary school

2. A special class in a mainstream primary school

3. A special primary school

4. Don’t know or haven’t decided yet



31. Have you engaged with a relevant professional in relation to planning

your child’s transition to primary school?

1. Early Years Specialist (a Better Start/ AIM Early Year Specialists)

2. Special Education Needs Organisers (who work for the National

Council for Special Education)


Thank you for completing the survey.

Consent to be contacted to discuss your child’s experiences of the

exemption to the upper age limit to the Early Childhood Care and

Education pre-school programme.

The Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Education

and Skills have asked the National Disability Authority to assist them with the

review of the exemption to the upper age limit for the ECCE pre-school

programme by independently reviewing relevant evidence and engaging with key

stakeholders.

In addition to gathering information from parents through this survey, the

National Disability Authority would like to interview some parents about their

child’s experience of their exemption to the upper age limit for the ECCE pre-

school programme.

The interviews will be phone interviews and will be arranged at a time of the day

that suits you. They will take no longer than 20 minutes to complete.

32. Please indicate whether or not you wish to be interviewed

1. Yes, I agree to being contacted by the National Disability Authority

about participating in a short phone interview

2. No, I don’t want to be contacted by the National Disability Authority

about participating in a short phone interview

33. If you answered “Yes” to question 32 above please state your first name

and provide a phone number on which the National Disability Authority

can contact you about setting up a phone interview.

Name Number

Please note that it may not be possible for the National Disability Authority to

interview all those who have expressed a willingness to be interviewed

Documents

Review of overage exemptions for the Early Childhood Care ... · Review of overage exemptions for the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Programme National Disability Authority